On Saturday, 3 February 2007 01:01, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > static int _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
> > > > > {
> > > > > int err;
> > > > > struct task_struct *p;
> > > > > cpumask_t old_allowed, tmp;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
> > > > > return -EBUSY;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!cpu_online(cpu))
> > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (freeze_processes()) {
> > > > > err = -EBUSY;
> > > > > goto out_freeze_notify_failed;
> > > > > }
> > > > > err = raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain,
> > > > > CPU_DOWN_PREPARE,
> > > > > (void
> > > > > *)(long)cpu);
> > > >
> > > > yeah. This all looks so nice that i almost cannot believe it's true :-)
> > >
> > > Well, it turns out that maybe it is in fact untrue. :-/
> > >
> > > I need to look at all uses of PF_NOFREEZE -- as I understand the
> > > code, processes marked PF_NOFREEZE will continue running, potentially
> > > interfering with the hotplug operation. :-(
> > >
> > > I will pass my findings on to this list.
> >
> > Well, I did it some time ago, although not very thoroughly.
> >
> > AFAICS there are not so many, but one that stands out is the worker threads.
> > We needed two of them to actually go to sleep, so now it's possible to
> > create
> > a "freezeable workqueue" the worker thread of which will not set
> > PF_NOFREEZE,
> > but currently this is only used by XFS.
>
> We should slowly move as workqueues to freezeable ones... Having too
> much stuff NOFREEZE is evil, even for swsusp.
On the other hand, some of the workqueues may be necessary for saving the image
(still, I have no examples ;-)).
Greetings,
Rafael
--
If you don't have the time to read,
you don't have the time or the tools to write.
- Stephen King
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
