[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111101215710.GA13803@google.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:57:10 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, trond.myklebust@...app.com,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] freezer: revert 27920651fe "PM / Freezer: Make
fake_signal_wake_up() wake TASK_KILLABLE tasks too"
Hey, Oleg.
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 08:46:01PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Or we can add TASK_FREEZABLE (like TASK_WAKEKILL), iirc we already
> > discussed this some time ago. And probably it makes sense to add the
> > generic wait_event_state().
>
> Forgot to mention. I think that before anything else we need
> signal_wake_up_state(). For example, note that none of the callers
> of signal_wake_up(resume => true) in ptrace code wants to wake up
> the killable task.
Yeah, agreed for both wait_event_state() and signal_wake_up_state().
For now, let's go with the count/dont_count. Can you please write up
a patch for that? Jeff, does this seem okay to you?
For TASK_FREEZABLE, I'm not entirely sure. Combined with
wait_event_state(), it can definitely reduce the number of different
variants of wait_event_*(). Let's see.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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