[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110825165650.GA8006@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:56:50 +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
On 08/25, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Yeah, what 'freeze' should do is a bit vague on the edges, I think.
> The freezer can't really halt the whole system operation including
> IOs. Tasks aren't the only source which can kick those off. There
> are other asynchronous sources,
Of course.
But still I can't understand why it is better to consider the exiting
task as "frozen" from the very beginning, right after PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT.
do_exit() does a lot of misc things, and this patch simply makes it
"invisible" to the freezer. This looks "unsafe" even if this is fine
for suspend/etc.
To me, try_to_freeze_tasks() should succed when all threads either
sleep in refrigerator(), or ->state = TASK_DEAD (the final schedule()
was called). Until then try_to_freeze_tasks() should retry.
But since we can't see the threads after exit_notify (in general),
the current ->exit_state check looks reasonable.
But again, again, I won't argue.
> Rafael, can you please enlighten
> us on the subject?
Please ;)
> Another freezer user is the cgroup,
Yes. And I don't understand this case too. I mean, the fact we ignore
the exiting tasks.
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