[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070402092818.GE2456@in.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:58:18 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
paulmck@...ibm.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
dino@...ibm.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Cpu-hotplug: Using the Process Freezer (try2)
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:16:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> hm, shouldnt the make be frozen immediately?
>
> doesnt the 'please freeze ASAP' flag get propagated to all tasks,
> immediately? After that point any cloning activity should duplicate that
> flag too, resulting in any new child freezing immediately too.
afaics, setting the 'please freeze asap' flag is racy wrt dup_task_struct
(where the child's tsk->thread_info->flags are copied from its parent?).
Secondly, from what I understand, it takes a 'flag to be set + signal marked
pending' for the child task to be frozen. If that is the case, then
copy_process may not propogae the signal to the child, which could mean
mean that we can be in a catch-up game in freeze_processes, trying to
freeze processes we didnt see in earlier passes.
I think copy_process() can check for something like this:
write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
...
if (freezing(current))
freeze_process(p); /* function exported by freezer */
...
write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
--
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