[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1605250042020.31937@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:45:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"live-patching@...r.kernel.org" <live-patching@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>
Subject: RE: livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model
On Tue, 24 May 2016, David Laight wrote:
> > > Related, please can we have a flag for the sleep and/or process so that
> > > an uninterruptible sleep doesn't trigger the 'hung task' detector
> >
> > TASK_KILLABLE
>
> Not sure that does what I want.
> It appears to allow some 'kill' actions to wake the process.
> I'm sure I've looked at the 'hung task' code since 2007.
The trick is the
if (t->state == TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
test in check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks(). That makes sure that
TASK_KILLABLE tasks (e.g. waiting on NFS I/O, but not limited only to
that; feel free to set it whereever you need) are skipped. Please note
that TASK_KILLABLE is actually a _mask_ that includes TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
as well; therefore the '==' test skips such tasks.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists