Re: [RFC PATCH -rt 2/2] RCU priority boosting additions to rcutorture

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, <mingo@...>, <tglx@...>, <dipankar@...>, <tytso@...>, <dvhltc@...>, <oleg@...>, <twoerner.k@...>, <josh@...>, <billh@...>, <nielsen.esben@...>, <corbet@...>
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2007 - 1:46 am

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:42:42PM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:

Even though it explicitly sleeps each time through the loop?  Hmmm...


If try_to_freeze() succeeds, do I need to clean up signal state?
It didn't look like it to me, but thought I should ask the expert!

My guess is that I can simply do:

	try_to_freeze();
	schedule_timeout_interruptible(HZ);

The schedule_timeout_interruptible() might return early, but if I
don't care about getting a shorter than expected sleep, I am OK,
right?  Besides, one would have to get a couple of very closely
spaced freeze_processes() calls for this to happen.  ;-)

						Thanx, Paul
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [RFC PATCH -rt 2/2] RCU priority boosting additions to r..., Nigel Cunningham, (Wed Jan 31, 10:12 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH -rt 2/2] RCU priority boosting additions to r..., Paul E. McKenney, (Wed Jan 31, 10:31 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH -rt 2/2] RCU priority boosting additions to r..., Nigel Cunningham, (Wed Jan 31, 10:42 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH -rt 2/2] RCU priority boosting additions to r..., Paul E. McKenney, (Thu Feb 1, 1:46 am)