[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070411114805.GA165@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:48:05 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vatsa@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: Don't depend on work queues
On 04/11, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:13:34PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > It should be calling try_to_freeze() somewhere anyway. We may need to freeze
> > all tasks in some cases.
>
> How about
> for (;;) {
> try_to_freeze();
>
> ?
Why?
> This change allows us to make all the worker threads freezeable by default.
> >From cpu-hotplug perspective, helper_wq was the only singlethreaded
> non-freezeable workqueue.
I think Eric's patch is what you need. We should _not_ freeze kthreadd(), we
need kthread_create() after freezing. Now it doesn't depend on workqueues, we
can freeze them all, single-thread or not.
I like this patch.
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