Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934100Ab3CMRsz (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:48:55 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64958 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932905Ab3CMRsx (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:48:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:46:41 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andi Kleen , Lucas De Marchi , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Paul Mackerras , david@gibson.dropbear.id.au, Kees Cook , Serge Hallyn , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , Feng Hong , Lucas De Marchi Subject: [PATCH 0/1] poweroff: change orderly_poweroff() to use schedule_work() Message-ID: <20130313174641.GA28083@redhat.com> References: <1363058712.4534.12.camel@pasglop> <20130312182210.GA15862@redhat.com> <20130312191118.GA17439@redhat.com> <20130312203514.GA23488@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130312203514.GA23488@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1561 Lines: 50 On 03/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 03/12, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > So yeah, I guess > > everything could just go into a workqueue. > > OK, I'll try to make the patch tomorrow. Should be trivial but it is > not clear how we should pass "bool force" without allocating the > work_struct which would be nice to avoid. Yes, it would be nice to keep it simple and use a single work/arg. Could you review? The change is trivial but - orderly_poweroff() always return 0. - the patch assumes that orderly_poweroff(false) after orderly_poweroff(true) acts as "force = true". Only xen uses "false", I hope this is fine. In fact I think we can change poweroff_force argument unconditionally, this "if (force)" check is mostly documentation. But we can add the locking or even allocate work_struct every time if this is wrong (or just looks wrong). - The patch assumes that orderly_poweroff() doesn't need the keventd_up() check, I hope this is correct... Lucas, Andrew, sorry. If this patch will be applied, then kernel-sysc-use-the-simpler-call_usermodehelper.patch should be dropped. Or I can redo this fix on top of -mm cleanup. > And. It seems there is another problem. argv_split(poweroff_cmd) can > obviously race with proc_dostring() ? I'll send another patch... Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/