Re: [PATCH] RFC: have tcp_recvmsg() check kthread_should_stop() and treat it as if it were signalled

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/28, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> Second, we *must* break that tcp_recvmsg() inside the kthread's
> main loop, of course! We want it stopped, after all, and if we don't
> make it "break" out of that function, the kthread _will_never_exit_.

In that case this kthread is buggy. We have sock->sk_rcvtimeo.

> Please note that this
> whole thing is about functions that will _simply_*never*_exit_ever_
> _unless_ given a signal.

ditto. kthread should not do this.

OK, I suggest to stop this thread. I don't claim you are wrong, just
we think differently ;)

> >This is what I can't understand completely. Why should we check SIGKILL
> >or signal_pending() in addition to kthread_stop_info.k, what is the point?
>
> ... so kthread_stop_info will go away too.

it should go away regardless, we have patches. Still I see no point
to check signal_pending() in kthread_stop().

Oleg.

-
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/