| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAH2r5ms-TKOKGbYJMQAN+BFNFCz9DnaKxrgxcLLTmm2Z798v6w@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:26:20 -0500 From: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> Cc: linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@...app.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john@...va.com Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/4] freezer: make fake_signal_wake_up wake TASK_KILLABLE tasks too FYI - I included the cifs one "cifs, freezer: add wait_event_freezekillable and have cifs use it" (and the corequisite fix for the build break when freezer not enabled) in my recent cifs merge request. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Wednesday, October 26, 2011, Jeff Layton wrote: >> > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:14:28 +0200 >> > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote: >> > >> > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2011, Jeff Layton wrote: >> > > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:18:48 +0200 >> > > > Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi! >> > > > > >> > > > > > TASK_KILLABLE is often used to put tasks to sleep for quite some time. >> > > > > > One of the most common uses is to put tasks to sleep while waiting for >> > > > > > replies from a server on a networked filesystem (such as CIFS or NFS). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Unfortunately, fake_signal_wake_up does not currently wake up tasks >> > > > > > that are sleeping in TASK_KILLABLE state. This means that even if the >> > > > > > code were in place to allow them to freeze while in this sleep, it >> > > > > > wouldn't work anyway. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This patch changes this function to wake tasks in this state as well. >> > > > > > This should be harmless -- if the code doing the sleeping doesn't have >> > > > > > handling to deal with freezer events, it should just go back to sleep. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm pretty sure this will break something; but that does not mean it >> > > > > is bad idea, just that it should be merged early and tested a lot. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > FWIW, I looked at most of the places in the kernel that do >> > > > TASK_KILLABLE sleeps and they look like they'll handle this correctly. >> > > > The main one I wasn't sure about was mem_cgroup_handle_oom(), but I >> > > > think it'll do the right thing too. I certainly could have missed >> > > > something though... >> > > > >> > > > In any case, would you mind merging this via the linux-pm tree for 3.2? >> > > >> > > I will push it for 3.2. >> > > >> > >> > Hi Rafael, >> > >> > Trond asked if you would also be willing to push patches 3 and 4 in >> > this series for 3.2 as well [1]? Note that patch #4 got another revision so >> > we'll want to make sure that you get that one. I can resend the >> > nfs/sunrpc patches if that will help... >> > >> > [1]: I think Steve F is going to push patch #2, so that one shouldn't >> > be an issue. >> >> Well, I've already sent my pull request. I can keep these patches in my >> tree for the next pull request, though (I'm sure there will be fixes against >> 3.2, so they will go along with those). > > BTW, do you have current versions handy? Or hasn't they changed? > > Rafael > -- Thanks, Steve -- 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