linux-kernel - Re: Freezeable workqueues [Was: 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 21 May 2007 01:06:42 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
	Alex Dubov <oakad@...oo.com>, Pierre Ossman <drzeus@...eus.cx>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Freezeable workqueues [Was: 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm]

On 05/20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 20 May 2007 21:54, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 
> > I am a bit afraid of too many yes/no options for the freezer, a couple of naive
> > questions.
> > 
> > 1. Can't we make all wqs freezable? I still can't see the reason to have both
> >    freezable and not freezable wqs.
> 
> The reason might be the same as for having freezable and nonfreezable kernel
> threads in general.  For example, there are some kernel threads that we need
> for saving the image and I don't see why there shouldn't be any such
> workqueues.

OK, I see.

> > 2. Why do we need CPU_TASKS_FROZEN? Can't we change cpu-hotplug to always
> >    freeze tasks right now, without any additional changes?
> 
> In principle, we can, but for this purpose we'd have to modify all NOFREEZE
> tasks.

Why?

>        That wouldn't fly, I'm afraid.
> 
> >    Any subsystem should handle correctly the case when _cpu_down() (say)
> >    is called with tasks_frozen == 1 anyway. So, why can't we simplify
> >    things and do
> > 
> >    	_cpu_down(int tasks_frozen)
> > 
> >  		if (!tasks_frozen)
> >  			freeze_processes();
> >  		...
> > 
> >   right now?
> 
> But we call _cpu_down() after device_suspend(), so many tasks are already
> frozen at this point.  We'd only need to freeze those that are not frozen and
> in _cpu_up() we'd have to thaw them.

Not sure I understand. When we call _cpu_down() after device_suspend(), we
check tasks_frozen == 1, and do not call freeze_processes(). If the task
could be frozen, it is already frozen.

When _cpu_down() sees tasks_frozen = 0, it does freeze_processes() itself,
and thaw_tasks() on return.

IOW, we never send (say) CPU_DEAD, always CPU_DEAD_FROZEN.

Wouldn't fly?

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/