[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070216194605.GB192@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:46:05 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, akpm@...l.org,
paulmck@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu, 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 02/16, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:46:17PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > frozen. The only exception is cleaning up of per-cpu threads (which is
> > not possible with processes frozen - if we can find a way to make that
> > possible, then everything can be done in CPU_DEAD).
>
> How abt a patch like below?
>
> --- process.c.org 2007-02-16 13:38:39.000000000 +0530
> +++ process.c 2007-02-16 13:38:59.000000000 +0530
> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ void refrigerator(void)
> recalc_sigpending(); /* We sent fake signal, clean it up */
> spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
>
> - while (frozen(current)) {
> + while (frozen(current) && !kthread_should_stop()) {
> current->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
> schedule();
> }
Instead, we can just clear PF_FROZEN before kthread_should_stop().
I don't claim this is better, but this way we don't need to add a
subtle change to process.c.
> This should let us do kthread_stop() in CPU_DEAD itself (while processes
> are frozen)? That would allow us to do everything from CPU_DEAD itself
> (and not have CPU_DEAD_KILL_THREADS).
... and probably avoid many races, good.
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