[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070223190334.GA23599@in.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:33:34 +0530
From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...il.com>, oleg@...sign.ru,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: freezer problems
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:32:01PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:17:23PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > Ok that was my point of concern. For hotplug we would ideally like
> > everyone to be frozen. If we are not freezing some (like vfork parents),
> > (rather if we dont -wait- for them to get frozen) before offlining a
> > cpu, then it may expose some hotplug unsafe code in the caller of vfork
> > in kernel - hopefully that is not a issue practically speaking.
>
> I notice that __call_usermodehelper() work function calls kernel_thread with
> CLONE_VFORK set. __call_usermodehelper() is usualled called in the
> context of a worker thread (kevent).
But I see __call_usermodehelper being called from the context of
khelper_wq which is a singlethreaded workqueue.
I thought we were not planning to freeze singlethreaded workqueue's for
hotplug, since we are not kthread_stopping them anywhere.
So this kthread_stop waiting for parent(khelper_wq) which is blocked on
wait_for_complete(child->vfork_done) shouldn't occur. No?
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
-
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