Questions about process state manipulation
gupta.v.amit at gmail.com
Tue Sep 18 19:19:55 EDT 2012
I think I couldn't get my first question across clearly. My intent isn't to
change do_fork()'s implementation. That wont work for precisely the reason
you mentioned.(Infact everything after the init process would end up
My question was more to explore if an existing running process can be
explicitly taken off the runqueue once we have a pointer to its task_struct.
Thanks for the info on the second question. (Although what family of calls
were you referring to by wait_interruptile()?)
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Kshemendra KP <kshemendra at suphalaam.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Amit Gupta <gupta.v.amit at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I had a question about manipulating process state information in the
>> kernel and am curious about the right way to go about it.
>> (I'm just messing around with some stuff to try and understand the kernel
>> better). I had 2 questions:
>> 1. I'm trying to create a process in the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state in the
>> kernel. Since do_fork() creates a process/task that is ready to be
>> scheduled, I was thinking what might be a good way to pull it off the
>> runqueue/stop its execution after do_fork() returns?
> Assuming you do the change in the do_fork() so that new process moves to
> sleep queue
> Whatever new process created made to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE in the do fork,
> who will wakeup the new process.
> If you just type "ls" commnad also it does not work as ls command calls
> fork() + exec(). So your shell fork() and
> moves to sleep queue. Similarly lot of fork+exec activities happen in the
> system will all move to sleep queue. Many
> deamons running on the system may do fork() or fork + exec() will stop
>> 2.I'm curious if someone can explain the correct way to use the
>> "set_task_state()" macro. Its implementation just seems to boil down to an
>> assignment to the appropriate member of the task_struct. The question I had
>> in mind was, what if the process is already running? Is it safe to do it?
>> Don't we need to acquire some sort of lock before we manipulate a
>> task_struct ?
> set_task_state() macro is used for portability reason. Earlier code shows
> direct manipulaation fo task_struct->state.
> When you execute wait_interruptile() family calls, it is the running
> process in kernel executes set_task_state() .
>> 3. I would also be interested to read the correct way to use task_lock()
>> that locks on alloc_lock field of the task_struct. What exactly is this
>> lock for and does acquiring it/or any other lock in the task_struct cause
>> the process to be remoted from the runqueue?
>> Would appreciate any pointers to appropriate code/reading or any
>> Amit Gupta
>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Kernelnewbies