On 04/23, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:02:08PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Gautham, isn't it possible to make a more simpler patch ? Just add
> > PF_NOFREEZE
> > check to frozen_process,
> >
> > static inline void frozen_process(struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > if (!unlikely(current->flags & PF_NOFREEZE)) {
> > p->flags |= PF_FROZEN;
> > wmb();
> > }
> > clear_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_FREEZE);
> > }
> >
>
> Btw, since frozen_process is currently being called only from
> refrigerator, I am wondering if we still need the struct task_struct *p
> parameter there. It's very unlikely that some other task would mark a
> particular task as frozen. No?
I agree. Only "current" can set PF_FROZEN anyway. I also think it is better
to move this function into kernel/power/process.c, no need to export it in
freezer.h. It is special, should be called from refrigerator() with task_lock()
held.
> Anyways, Andrew, Could you please replace the earlier sent patch titled
> "fix_pf_nofreeze_and_freezeable_race.patch" with the following one?
>
> ...
>
> --- linux-2.6.21-rc6.orig/include/linux/freezer.h
> +++ linux-2.6.21-rc6/include/linux/freezer.h
> @@ -57,8 +57,10 @@ static inline int thaw_process(struct ta
> */
> static inline void frozen_process(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> - p->flags |= PF_FROZEN;
> - wmb();
> + if (!unlikely(p->flags & PF_NOFREEZE)) {
> + p->flags |= PF_FROZEN;
> + wmb();
> + }
> clear_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_FREEZE);
> }
On the second thought, this patch doesn't help if the thread never
calls try_to_freeze() exactly because it marks itself PF_NOFREEZE.
Perhaps it is better to cancel freezing in soon-to-be-introduced
freezer_exempt().
In any case I agree, this one is better than current
fix_pf_nofreeze_and_freezeable_race.patch
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/
