[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4641B92D.1030909@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 14:06:05 +0200
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
rjw@...k.pl, James.Bottomley@...elEye.com, aneesh.kumar@...il.com,
drzeus@...eus.cx, dwmw2@...radead.org, ego@...ibm.com,
greg@...ah.com, mingo@...e.hu, neilb@...e.de, oleg@...sign.ru,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 128/197] freezer: add try_to_freeze calls to all kernel
threads
Pavel Machek wrote:
>> > Add try_to_freeze() calls to the remaining kernel threads that do not call
>> > try_to_freeze() already, although they set PF_NOFREEZE.
>> >
>> > In the future we are going to replace PF_NOFREEZE with a set of flags that
>> > will be set to indicate in which situations the task should not be frozen (for
>> > example, there can be a task that should be frozen for the CPU hotplugging and
>> > should not be frozen for the system suspend).
[...]
>> Why add no-op-try_to_freeze() everywhere now, instead of adding it later
>> when it will actually be needed? (I.e. "in the future".)
>
> It is needed later in the patch series... for kprobes, etc.
So does freezer_exempt() still do what its name says, or does it
freezer_exempt_but_not_always() now?
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= -=--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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