On 04/02, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> +/*
> + * Exempt the current process from being frozen for a certain event
> + */
> +static inline void freezer_exempt(unsigned long exempt_freeze_event)
> +{
> + if (exempt_freeze_event == FE_NONE)
> + current->flags &= ~PF_FE_ALL;
> + else
> + current->flags |= exempt_freeze_event;
> +}
So, a kernel_thread should call freezer_exempt(FE_XXX) somewhere at the
beginning if it doesn't want to be considered as freezeable. But what if
the freezing is already in progress? In that case freezer_exempt() should
somehow clear TIF_FREEZE (if exempt_freeze_event doesn't match freeze_event
parameter of freeze_processes()), otherwise we may hit a nasty bug, much
worse than a freezing failure (which could be restarted).
try_to_freeze_tasks() succeeds because the task is !freezeable(), the
task goes to refrigerator (while it should not), thaw_tasks() ignores
process and it stays frozen.
Alternatively, we can do a re-check in refrigerator() to fix this race.
In any case, it looks like freeze_event should be stored in a global var.
> --- linux-2.6.21-rc5.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6.21-rc5/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -5057,6 +5057,7 @@ static int migration_thread(void *data)
> BUG_ON(rq->migration_thread != current);
>
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> + freezer_exempt(FE_ALL);
This is a real nitpick, but it was hard to me to understand this change.
Because it looks as if we have a subtle reason to set TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
before freezer_exempt(). Unless I missed something, I'd suggest to move
freezer_exempt() up, before set_current_state().
The same for apm_mainloop().
Oleg.
-
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/
