[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070228030726.GK29179@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:37:26 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problem with freezable workqueues
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:57:35AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > How about other kthread_stop()s ? For example, kernel/softirq.c:cpu_callback() ?
>
> They all are PF_NOFREEZE, I suppose. If we make all workqueues nonfreezable
> (as they were before), the problem won't appear.
We can just thaw the worker thread selectively before kthread_stopping
them. This will let us freeze all worker threads (which we want to for
hotplug anyway).
> > I think we need a general "cpu_down() after freeze" implementation, this is what
> > Gautham and Srivatsa are working on, right?
>
> Yes, certainly.
Hmm ..good point. So can we assume that disable/enable_nonboot_cpus() are called
with processes frozen already?
Gautham, you need to take this into account in your patchset!
> > I'm afraid this is racy. We can't touch *cwq, it may be freed. Suppose
> > that another thread does destroy_workqueue(), and we thaw that thread
> > before cwq->thread.
>
> Okay, in that case I'd suggest removing create_freezeable_workqueue() and
> make all workqueues nonfreezable once again for 2.6.21 (as far as I know, only
> the two XFS workqueues are affected).
See above suggestion of thawing worker thread before kthread_stopping
it.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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