[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070214202209.GC301@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:22:09 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc: akpm@...l.org, paulmck@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu, vatsa@...ibm.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...k.pl
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH(Experimental) 1/4] freezer-cpu-hotplug core
On 02/14, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> o Splits CPU_DEAD into two events namely
> - CPU_DEAD: which will be handled while the processes are still
> frozen.
>
> - CPU_DEAD_KILL_THREADS: To be handled after we thaw_processes.
Imho, this is not right. This change the meaning of CPU_DEAD, and so
we should fix all users of CPU_DEAD as well.
How about
CPU_DEAD_WHATEVER
the processes are still frozen
CPU_DEAD
after we thaw_processes
This way we can add processing of the new CPU_DEAD_WHATEVER event where
it may help. We don't need to change (for example) workqueue.c with this
patch, we can do it in a separate patch.
CPU_UP_PREPARE is called after freeze_processes()... Probably this works,
but imho this is no good. Suppose for a moment that khelper will be frozen
(yes, yes it can't be), then we can't do kthread_create().
Oleg.
-
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