[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110818173511.GB6910@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:35:11 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] apm-emulation: use wait_event_freezable() instead of
freezer_[do_not_]count()
Hi Tejun,
The patch looks fine even if I know nothing about this code.
But I have a bit off-topic question,
On 08/18, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> vfork is moving away from freezer_[do_not_]count() one way or the
> other
Yes, I think we should do this in any case.
> Use wait_event_freezable() instead.
>
> The only annoyance is that wait_event_freezable() wakes up with
> -ERESTART if there are pending signals
IOW, we do not have wait_event_freezable_uninterruptible/etc.
Perhaps we can introduce TASK_FREEZABLE ? It should be used along
with TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE (like TASK_WAKEKILL). freeze_task() can
use TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE | FREEZABLE for wake_up.
vfork() can use FREEZABLE too (although this is not needed in the
long term, we should teach it to sleep in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE).
But I feel you are going to reimplement freezer completely, in this
case please ignore.
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