[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131113191143.GA24005@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:11:43 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: __refrigerator() && saved task->state
Sorry for noise, but I am totally confused.
Could you please remind why __refrigerator() saves/restores
task->state?
I can see only one reason: set_freezable() kernel threads which
check kthread_should_stop() and do try_to_freeze() by hand.
But does this save/restore actually help?
For example kauditd_thread() looks obviously racy exactly because
try_to_freeze() can return in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state after
wake_up(kauditd_wait) was already called, we can miss an event.
At first glance it would be better to simply kill this logic? If
it was called with ->state != 0, the caller is going to schedule()
and it probably executes the wait_event-like code, in this case
it would me more safe to pretend the task got a spurious wakeup?
(as for kauditd_thread() in particular, it looks wrong in any
case, even kthread_should_stop() check doesn't look right, it
needs kthread_freezable_should_stop() afaics).
But I guess I missed something else...
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists