[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200702190019.23215.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:19:21 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
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 Sunday, 18 February 2007 23:01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Appended is a patch that does something along these lines. The necessary
> > thread_info flags are defined for i386 and x86_64, for now.
>
> I'll try to look at this patch when I am not sooooo sleepy ...
>
> just one small nit right now,
>
> > --- linux-2.6.20-mm2.orig/include/asm-i386/thread_info.h 2007-02-18 19:49:34.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.20-mm2/include/asm-i386/thread_info.h 2007-02-18 19:50:37.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -135,6 +135,7 @@ static inline struct thread_info *curren
> > #define TIF_IO_BITMAP 18 /* uses I/O bitmap */
> > #define TIF_FREEZE 19 /* is freezing for suspend */
> > #define TIF_FORCED_TF 20 /* true if TF in eflags artificially */
> > +#define TIF_FREEZER_SKIP 21 /* task freezer should not count us */
>
> Do we need to put this flag into thread_info? It is always modified by
> "current", so it could live in task_struct->flags instead.
I thought we were running low on the task_struct->flags bits. :-)
Apart from this, we may need to set it from somewhere else in the future.
Greetings,
Rafael
-
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