[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070228084859.GB104@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:48:59 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, 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 02/28, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> 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 am not sure this is a good change for 2.6.21.
I strongly believe it is better to change XFS so that it doesn't use
create_freezeable_workqueue() as Rafael suggested. Besides, freezeable
workqueues are buggy anyway in 2.6.21-rc,
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116855740612755
This means that workqueues become non-freezeable after suspend/resume
anyway (if I understand disable_nonboot_cpus() correctly).
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