[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111102151354.GA28527@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:13:54 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, "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"
On 11/02, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:57:10 -0700
> Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> Let me make sure I understand since I don't have a great grasp of the
> freezer internals...
>
> This will set the PF_FREEZER_SKIP flag on the task, which prevents
> try_to_freeze_tasks from incrementing the "todo" var for this process
> and should let the suspend proceed.
>
> So this really makes try_to_freeze_tasks set PF_FREEZING on the task,
> but not get upset that it doesn't actually call try_to_freeze().
Yes. PF_FREEZER_SKIP means, "please count me as frozen". This task can
do nothing except refrigerator() after wakeup.
> Is that sufficient for a process that's just sleeping here?
I think this should work... but this is the question to you ;)
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