[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171101164314.GA32760@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 17:43:14 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
jeyu@...nel.org, jikos@...nel.org, lpechacek@...e.cz, pavel@....cz,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking
tasks
On 11/01, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> On Tue 2017-10-31 12:48:52, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > + if (task->flags & PF_KTHREAD) {
> > + /*
> > + * Wake up a kthread which still has not been migrated.
> > + */
> > + wake_up_process(task);
>
> I have just noticed that freezer used wake_up_state(p, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> IMHO, we should do so as well.
I won't argue, but...
> wake_up_process() wakes also tasks in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state.
> These might not be ready for an unexpected wakeup. For example,
> see concat_dev_erase() in drivers/mtd/mtdcontact.c.
I'd say that concat_dev_erase() should be fixed, any code should be ready
for spurious wakeup.
Note also that wake_up_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) won't wakeup the TASK_IDLE
kthreads, and most of the kthreads which use TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE should use
TASK_IDLE today, because in most cases TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE was used to not
contribute to loadavg.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists