On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Ben LaHaise wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > > + current->state = TASK_RUNNING; /* We *must* do this before touching userspace! */
> >
> > This smells suspiciously. Page fault code should not stuck only because
> > task state is not running. It contaradicts all the idea behind wait queues.
> >
> > Essentially, fault is like signal. It must move task state to running.
>
> Applying the change to the page fault handler might just be the
> right thing to do, and in fact it would make sense in 2.3 to have
> the fault handler also switch to lazy tlb mode if the task has to
> perform io. The fault handler does neither of these things right
> now, and in fact this was causing occasional stuck tasks if the
> fault ended up calling schedule before changing current->state.
Won't we confuse lots of pieces of code when their
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE process is returned to them as
a TASK_RUNNING one?
I'm somewhat afraid that we will break code whichever
way we go. That's why I've added a no-sleep workaround
to __get_free_pages() (hey, this isn't happening often
enough to run us out of memory) and added the printk()
to warn us about potentially dangerous code.
regards,
Rik
-- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:00:17 EST