[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111101005505.GO18855@google.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:55:05 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] freezer: revert 27920651fe "PM / Freezer: Make
fake_signal_wake_up() wake TASK_KILLABLE tasks too"
Hey, again.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 04:30:59PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I can't remember one off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure there
> at least are few which expect tight inter-locking between sleeps and
> wakeups. I'll look for examples and post reply. ISTR them being
> kernel threads so this might not apply directly but it's still a
> dangerous game to play.
Hmm... I couldn't find KILLABLE used like that but here are two
UNINTERRUPTIBLE sleep examples.
* kthread_start() depends on the fact that a kthread won't be woken up
from UNINTERRUPTIBLE sleep spuriously.
* jfs_flush_journal() doesn't check whether the wakeup was spurious
after waiting if !tblkGC_COMMITTED.
Maybe we can re-define KILLABLE as killable && freezable but IMHO that
requires pretty strong rationales. If at all possible, let's not
diddle with that if it can be worked around some other way.
Thank you.
--
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