[linux-audio-dev] How to kill a rogue (p)thread

[Jack O'Quin]

Arve Knudsen <aknuds-1 at broadpark.no> writes:

> True .. That was one approach I considered originally while sketching
> up solutions, I guess it slipped my mind in the meantime :| I was
> thinking it could possibly be an expensive operation though as NPTL
> sources seem to indicate, maybe best avoided if memory locks are
> involved (I'm no optimization guru, I'm sure you can tell). 

It doesn't look all that expensive.  The magic is done by a platform-
dependent compare-and-swap operation.  On some SMP machines that can
be slow, but generally only in high-contention situations (AFAIK).

> Anyway, do you think it would be good to keep a canary around to act
> on CPU starvation?

Personally, I don't see much need for a canary thread.  Others may
disagree.  But, a watchdog is quite helpful for debugging.  In some
cases, the application will provide its own watchdog.  Is it possible
for that thread to be optional?
-- 
  joq