On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 02:21:39PM -0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > @@ -1637,7 +1637,7 @@ static int sync_thread_master(void *data)
> > > continue;
> > > }
> > > while (ip_vs_send_sync_msg(tinfo->sock, sb->mesg) < 0) {
> > > - int ret = __wait_event_interruptible(*sk_sleep(sk),
> >
> > So ideally there's be a comment here why we're using interruptible but
> > then ignore interruptions.
> >
> > Julian said (
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.lfd.2.00.1310012245020.1...@ja.ssi.bg ):
> >
> > " Yes, your patch looks ok to me. In the past
> > we used ssleep() but IPVS users were confused why
> > IPVS threads increase the load average. So, we
> > switched to _interruptible calls and later the socket
> > polling was added. "
>
> I've done this in the past so that the code sleeps interruptibly
> unless there is a signal pending - which would cause it to return
> early.
>
> /* Tell scheduler we are going to sleep... */
> if (signal_pending(current))
> /* We don't want waking immediately (again) */
> sleep_state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
> else
> sleep_state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
> set_current_state(sleep_state);
If this is for kernel threads, I think you can wipe the pending state;
not entirely sure how signals interact with kthreads; Oleg will know.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
