On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:55:29 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 04:46:54AM +0800, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 23:49:50 +0800
> > Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > This allows quick response to Ctrl-C etc. for impatient users.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > mm/page-writeback.c | 3 +++
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-09-09 16:01:14.000000000 +0800
> > > +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-09-09 16:02:27.000000000 +0800
> > > @@ -553,6 +553,9 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> > > __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > > io_schedule_timeout(pause);
> > >
> > > + if (signal_pending(current))
> > > + break;
> > > +
> >
> > Given the patch description, I think you might want "fatal_signal_pending()"
> > here ???
>
> __fatal_signal_pending() tests SIGKILL only, while the one often used
> and need more quick responding is SIGINT..
>
I thought that at first too.... but I don't think that is the case.
In kernel/signal.c, in complete_signal, we have
if (sig_fatal() ...)
....
sigaddset(&t->pending.signal, SIGKILL);
where sig_fatal is
#define sig_fatal(t, signr) \
(!siginmask(signr, SIG_KERNEL_IGNORE_MASK|SIG_KERNEL_STOP_MASK) && \
(t)->sighand->action[(signr)-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL)
so (if I'm reading the code correctly), if a process receives a signal for
which the handler is SIG_DFL, then SIGKILL is set in the pending mask, so
__fatal_signal_pending will be true.
So it fatal_signal_pending should catch any signal that will cause the
process to exit. I assume that it what you want...
NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>