On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:00, Guillaume Chazarain wrote:
> 27/07/03 03:57:19, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> >On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:20, Guillaume Chazarain wrote:
> >> Hi Con,
> >>
> >> Strange your activate() function in O9. Isn't it?
> >> It doesn't care that much about sleep_time.
> >>
> >> So here is a very simple trouble maker.
> >
> >Yes I know it's a way to make something fairly cpu intensive remain
> >interactive. However since it sleeps long enough (2ms at 1000Hz is just
> >enough), it doesn't bring the machine to a standstill, and is easily
> >killable. I doubt it is worth working around this, but I'm open to your
> >comments about variations on this theme that might be a problem.
>
> The previous code was a mistake. (Calling clock() before sleeping is quite
> dumb...) Here is another one. If you put the right value in MHZ, (maybe
> more, maybe less, I dunno), I bet you won't get out without power cycling
> your box...
Well I tried it. Luckily it was on an O10 int patched kernel which has some
extra safeguards and it made the machine jerky but usable and easy to kill
the troublemaker. Check for O10int which I'm posting soon, and see if what
I've done is adequate.
Con
-
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 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:32 EST