Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] signals: Always place SIGCONT and SIGSTOP on'shared_pending'

[Tejun Heo]

Hey, guys.

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 02:57:57PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> But even SIGSTOP should be routed properly. If the process is ptraced,
> the tracee reports SIGSTOP to the debugger first. This means that
> tkill(SIGSTOP) should be delivered to the right target.

I think the more important part is that there really isn't much point
in optimizing SIGSTOP/CONT.  They inherently involve heavy,
walk-every-thread operations of putting them to sleep and reversing it
and there isn't much point in optimizing sending SIGSTOP to stopped
processes or CONT to running ones.  In addition, STOP/CONT interaction
is already scary enough so I'd like to avoid adding complexities there
if at all possible.

I think it would be better to concentrate on more usual signals.

Thank you.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/