Thread (9 messages) 9 messages, 4 authors, 2012-01-22
  • (off-list ancestor, not in this archive)
  • SIGKILL · Mulyadi Santosa <hidden> · 2012-01-19
  • SIGKILL · Darshan Ghumare <hidden> · 2012-01-19
  • SIGKILL · Mulyadi Santosa <hidden> · 2012-01-19
  • SIGKILL · Dave Hylands <hidden> · 2012-01-19
  • SIGKILL · Darshan Ghumare <hidden> · 2012-01-20
  • SIGKILL · Dave Hylands <hidden> · 2012-01-20
  • SIGKILL · Darshan Ghumare <hidden> · 2012-01-22
  • SIGKILL · Dave Hylands <hidden> · 2012-01-22
  • SIGKILL · Anand Moon <hidden> · 2012-01-19

SIGKILL

From: Dave Hylands <hidden>
Date: 2012-01-20 07:02:21

Hi Darshan,

Replying to all this time....

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Darshan Ghumare
[off-list ref] wrote:
...snip...
What if,
spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
for ( ; ; )
{
? ? ? ?;
}
spin_lock_irqrestore(&lock, flags);
Since you're using spinlocks and disabling interrupts, this would be
running in kernel space.

On a single core machine - you'll have locked up your entire computer.

On a multi-core machine you'll have locked up one core.

You don't need to use the spinlock, just disabling interrupts is
sufficient. Even on a multicore machine, the spinlocks would just
prevent a second core from executing the code if it tried to acquire
the same spinlock.

I don't think that there is any convenient way to kill such a thread.

-- 
Dave Hylands
Shuswap, BC, Canada
http://www.davehylands.com
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help