From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>,
Steve Dickson <steved@redhat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Daire Byrne <Daire.Byrne@framestore.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:40:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <32260.1239658818@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1239649429.16771.9.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> wrote:
> Should that really be TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE? I don't see anything obvious
> in the enclosing for(;;) loop that checks for or handles signals...
If it were TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, it would sit there in the D-state when not
doing anything. I must admit, I thought I was calling daemonize(), but that
seems to have got lost somewhere.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-13 21:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-13 18:17 [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 19:03 ` Trond Myklebust
2009-04-13 19:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 21:40 ` David Howells [this message]
2009-04-13 21:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 21:57 ` Trond Myklebust
2009-04-13 22:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-15 23:27 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-16 9:10 ` David Howells
2009-04-16 14:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-22 13:37 ` [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a full memory barrier David Howells
2009-04-22 13:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 14:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-22 14:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 15:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-22 15:12 ` David Howells
2009-04-22 15:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 16:23 ` David Howells
2009-04-22 17:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-23 16:32 ` [PATCH] It may not be assumed that wake_up(), finish_wait() and co. imply a " David Howells
2009-04-23 16:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-24 11:46 ` David Howells
2009-04-24 15:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 17:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-24 17:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 17:48 ` David Howells
2009-04-24 18:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-28 10:18 ` David Howells
2009-04-28 13:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 17:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-24 17:53 ` David Howells
2009-04-24 18:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-23 17:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-23 20:35 ` David Howells
2009-04-23 21:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-23 21:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-23 16:36 ` [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a full " Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-23 20:37 ` David Howells
2009-04-23 16:00 ` [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait David Howells
2009-04-23 16:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 21:35 ` David Howells
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-06-11 12:12 David Howells
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=32260.1239658818@redhat.com \
--to=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=Daire.Byrne@framestore.com \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=steved@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.