[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080507135333.GS19219@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 07:53:34 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Liam Howlett <howlett@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] Freezer: Try to handle killable tasks
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 12:07:55AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The introduction of TASK_KILLABLE allows the freezer to work in some situation
> that it could not handle before.
>
> Make the freezer handle killable tasks and add try_to_freeze() in some places
> where it is safe to freeze a (killable) task. Introduce the
> wait_event_killable_freezable() macro to be used wherever the freezing of
> a waiting killable task is desirable.
Why do you say that TASK_KILLABLE allows the freezer to work in some
situations where it couldn't before? If something's using one of the
killable functions, it means that it knows how to clean up and unwind
gracefully if the task receives a fatal signal. I don't understand what
connection there is to the freezer.
--
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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