Re: [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait

Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13T21:53:22Z

On 04/13, David Howells wrote:
>
> 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.

daemonize() is not needed, kthread_create() creates the kernel thread which
ignores all signals. So it doesn't matter which state we use to sleep,
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.

Oleg.