Re: Runaway cron task on 2.5.63/4 bk?

[george anzinger]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> george anzinger <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, george anzinger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lets consider this one on its own merits.  What SHOULD sleep do when 
>>>>asked to sleep for MAX_INT number of jiffies or more, i.e. when 
>>>>jiffies overflows?  My notion, above, it that it is clearly an error. 
>>>
>>>
>>>My suggestion (in order of preference):
>>> - sleep the max amount, and then restart as if a signal had happened
>>
>>I think this will require a 64-bit expire in the timer_struct 
>>(actually it would not be treated as such, but the struct would still 
>>need the added bits).  Is this ok?
>>
>>I will look at the problem in detail and see if there might be another 
>>way without the need of the added bits.
> 
> 
> Is it not possible to just sit in a loop, sleeping for 0x7fffffff jiffies
> on each iteration?  (Until the final partial bit of course)

Seems reasonable.  I will have a look.

-g
> 
> 
>>Hm...  I changed it to what it is to make it easier to track down 
>>problems in the test code... and this was user code.  My thinking was 
>>that such large values are clear errors, and having the code "hang" in 
>>the sleep just hides the problem.  But then, I NEVER make a system 
>>call without checking for errors....  And, I was making a LOT of sleep 
>>calls and wanted to know which one(s) were wrong.
> 
> 
> If an app wants to sleep forever, calling
> 
> 	while (1)
> 		sleep(MAX_INT);
> 
> seems like a reasonable approach.  I'd expect quite a lot of applications
> would be doing that.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

-- 
George Anzinger   [e-mail]
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml