> If you put the process in (un)interruptible sleep in the kernel, won't this
> be enough? This is different than SIGSTOP. Is the requirement that this
> process not leave the kernel call, or that it is actually consuming CPU
> cycles as well?
The process needs to be using CPU time, however, there must be a chance to
the scheduler to change the current process... if this occurs, than the delay
has to be aborted.
>
> > About using udelay... this soluction seemed fine to me at first but if I
> > hang the CPU with udelay the scheduler will no be doing it's job (isn't
> > it?). This would give me even more intrusiveness (another requirement:
> > the less intrusiveness as possible).
>
> It would probably work OK on an SMP system, since tasks can still be run
> on the other CPU.
>
> Cheers, Andreas
-- Luís Henriques - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 23 2001 - 21:00:27 EST