[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070321165534.GA476@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:55:34 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] 2.6.21-rc4-mm1: freezing of processes broken
On 03/21, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:45:16 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 21 March 2007 15:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Could the freezer code be trying to freeze the idle thread as a result?
> > >
> > > Yes. remove-the-likelypid-check-in-copy_process.patch make idle threads
> > > visible to for_each_process/do_each_thread. Note also that idle threads
> > > have ->mm != NULL. freezer, oom_kill, move_task_off_dead_cpu, etc, should
> > > not see idle threads, but they do now.
> >
> > Well, I think this is a good enough reason for asking Andrew to drop this
> > patch.
>
> Or we change the freezer to skip pid==0 tasks.
I strongly disagree. In that case we should audit all users of for_each_process.
Imho, this change is too dangerous. Actually, I personally think it is very good
that idle threads are special and not visible, imho we should not change this.
Btw. Rafael, Andrew, what about
[PATCH] Make XFS workqueues nonfreezable
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117270675922229
, don't you think this should go to 2.6.21 ?
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