[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110823155221.GB25808@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:52:21 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: rjw@...k.pl, menage@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] freezer: make exiting tasks properly unfreezable
Hi.
Not a comment, but the question. Probably falls into the "read the
whole series" category too.
On 08/19, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> There's no point in freezing an exiting task.
This is not clear to me. Probably this is fine, I do not know what
the callers of freeze_processes() actually expect.
> @@ -915,6 +913,12 @@ NORET_TYPE void do_exit(long code)
>
> ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT, code);
>
> + /*
> + * With ptrace notification done, there's no point in freezing from
> + * here on. Disallow freezing.
> + */
> + current->flags |= PF_NOFREEZE;
OK, but what PF_NOFREEZE actually means?
Apart from "dont try to freeze" it means "no need to freeze", yes?
IOW, try_to_freeze_tasks() can succeed even if we have a lot of
exitinig task which can make some activity, say, disk i/o. Is this
correct?
Once again, I do not understand the problem-space at all, jus I am
curious.
Thanks,
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