[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141029113655.GD10476@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:36:55 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
ilya.dryomov@...tank.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] nested sleeps, fixes and debug infrastructure
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:31:03PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:35:03AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:00:56AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > But what if it calls try_to_freeze() and another thread (which should
> > > be frozen too) sleeps in kthread_stop() ?
> >
> > Fair point indeed. Now I had a look at __refrigerator() and is there any
> > reason we should not remove that .check_kthr_stop argument and replace
> > it with an unconditional (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD) ?
>
> Hmm, doesn't kthread_freezable_should_stop() suffer the same problem? It
> should not refrigerate when should_stop.
Oh never you mind, i've got my head on backwards it seems, it uses
__refrigerator(.check_kthr_stop = true), which does another should_stop
test.
--
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