[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130216170545.GB4910@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:05:45 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] vfork: don't freezer_count() for in-kernel users
of CLONE_VFORK
On 02/16, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> We don't need to call freezer_do_not_count() for in-kernel users
> of CLONE_VFORK since exec will get called in bounded time.
>
> We don't want to call freezer_count() for in-kernel users because
> they may be holding locks. freezer_count() calls try_to_freeze().
> We don't want to freeze an in-kernel user because it may be
> holding locks.
I can only repeat my question ;)
Who? We should not do this anyway. And __call_usermodehelper() doesn't
afaics.
OK, its caller (process_one_work) does lock_map_acquire() for debugging
purposes, this can "confuse" print_held_locks_bug(). But this thread is
PF_NOFREEZE ?
Previously this was needed to suppress the false positive. Now that 2/5
checks PF_NOFREEZE, why do we need this change?
> @@ -722,9 +722,11 @@ static int wait_for_vfork_done(struct task_struct *child,
> {
> int killed;
>
> - freezer_do_not_count();
> + if (!(current->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> + freezer_do_not_count();
If I missed something and we really need this, imho this needs a comment.
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