On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 08:00:04PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/12, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:48:20PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > > Actually, we should do this before destroy_workqueue() calls
> > > > flush_workqueue().
> > > > Otherwise flush_c
On 04/12, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:48:20PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > Actually, we should do this before destroy_workqueue() calls
> > > flush_workqueue().
> > > Otherwise flush_cpu_workqueue() can hang forever in a similar manner.
> >
> > Yep. I guess
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:52:20AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> I wonder if there is some value in "enforcing" an order in which
> processes get frozen i.e freeze A first before B. That may solve the
> deadlocks we have been discussing wrt kthread_stop and flush_workqueue
> as well.
>
> The i
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:48:20PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > Actually, we should do this before destroy_workqueue() calls
> > flush_workqueue().
> > Otherwise flush_cpu_workqueue() can hang forever in a similar manner.
>
> Yep. I guess these are a class of freezer deadlocks very simila
On 04/04, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 07:28:28PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > worker_thread:
> >
> > for (;;) {
> > try_to_freeze();
> >
> > prepare_to_wait();
> > if (...)
> >
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 07:28:28PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I changed my mind :) The problem is general, I am starting to believe
> it is better to change kthread_stop().
yes i agree. Although is some cases like destroy_workqueue, we need to
mark the target thread non-freezable way before we
On 04/03, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 07:03:36PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > is better to introduce a new helper for that, kthread_thaw_stop() or
> > something.
>
> Will think of that.
I changed my mind :) The problem is general, I am starting to believe
it is bet
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 07:03:36PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I think it would be nice to do. I believe we can cleanup ksoftirqd()
> and migration_thread() as well (kill wait_to_die: loop). Probably it
I doubt whether we can kill it in migration_thread, since that is
another thread which is unf
On 04/03, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 03:47:29PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > for (;;) {
> > try_to_freeze();
> >
> > prepare_to_wait(&cwq->more_work, &wait,
> > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > if (
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 03:47:29PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I still think that wait_to_die + bind_cpu is unneeded complication.
> Why can't we do the following:
>
> static int worker_thread(void *__cwq)
> {
> ...
>
> for (;;) {
>
> On 04/02, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> Clean up workqueue.c from the perspective of freezer-based cpu-hotplug.
> This patch
I'll study these patches later, a couple of comments after the quick reading.
> This means that all non-singlethreaded workqueues *have* to
> be frozen to avoid any rac
11 matches
Mail list logo
