[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200704111644.53280.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:44:52 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: ego@...ibm.com
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
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 Wednesday, 11 April 2007 15:31, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 03:48:05PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 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?
>
> If some event (defintely NOT cpu hotplug) needs this thread frozen.
I didn't mean the CPU hotplug too, BTW, but I'm considering freezing all tasks
at the late stage of suspend (ie. after freezing devices).
Greetings,
Rafael
-
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