[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070218161953.GB143@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:19:53 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: ego@...ibm.com, akpm@...l.org, paulmck@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu,
vatsa@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: freezer problems
On 02/18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 18 February 2007 15:52, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > And now another problem: exec. de_thread() sleeps in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> > waiting for all sub-threads to die, and we have the same "deadlock" if
> > one of them is frozen. This is nasty. Probably we can change the ->state
> > to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and add try_to_freeze(), or play with the new PF_
> > flag, but I am not sure it is safe to freeze() the task which is deep
> > in the exec() path.
>
> Hm, I haven't been aware of this case.
>
> Well, probably we can do something like in the patch that I've just sent: the
> child that enters the refrigerator should know that the parent is
> uninterruptible and will wait for it to exit. Thus it can either mark the
> parent as frozen or just exit the refrigerator without freezing itself.
Sub-thread could already sleep in refrigerator when another thread does exec.
So we have no choice but somehow freeze the execer. But again, I don't know
if it is safe to freeze it here, at de_thread() stage. It is called from
load_xxx_binary(), we may hold some important locks...
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