[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070109100925.GA22080@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:39:26 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] flush_cpu_workqueue: don't flush an empty ->worklist
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:51:52AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This thread makes absolutely -no- calls to try_to_freeze() in its lifetime.
>
> Looks like a bug to me. powerpc does appear to try to support the freezer.
>
> > 1. Does this mean that the thread can't be frozen? (lets say that the
> > thread's PF_NOFREEZE is not set)
>
> yup. I'd expect the freeze_processes() call would fail if this thread is
> running.
ok.
>
> > AFAICS it can still be frozen by sending it a signal and have the signal
> > delivery code call try_to_freeze() ..
>
> kernel threads don't take signals in the same manner as userspace. A
> kernel thread needs to explicitly poll, via
>
> if (signal_pending(current))
> do_something()
Thanks for the education! I feel much better about the use of process
freezer now ..
> > 2. If the thread can be frozen at any arbitrary point of its execution, then I
> > dont see what prevents cpu_online_map from changing under the feet of rtasd
> > thread,
>
> It cannot.
Excellent ..
I just hope the latency of freeze_processes() is tolerable ..
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists