Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750978AbXA3TuK (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:50:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750999AbXA3TuJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:50:09 -0500 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:53195 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750965AbXA3TuG (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:50:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:49:40 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ingo Molnar , dipankar@in.ibm.com, Gautham Shenoy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [mm PATCH 4/6] RCU: (now) CPU hotplug Message-ID: <20070130194940.GI2092@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20070126112837.059502fc.akpm@osdl.org> <20070130073340.GC30160@elte.hu> <20070130160244.GB2092@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <200701301744.48601.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070130102718.f03f37d8.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070130102718.f03f37d8.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1704 Lines: 39 On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:27:18AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:44:47 +0100 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > > 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. > > Or we can create a variant of freeze_processes which ignores PF_NOFREEZE. > > As I said eariler, we might need to change the freezer code for this > application. In fact we should do so: that sys_sync() call in there is > quite inappropriate, as is, I suppose, the two-pass freeze attempt. As are > the nice printks, come to that. > > Pretty simple stuff though. And we might need to change some of the processes that currently set PF_NOFREEZE so that they periodically go somewhere that the freezer can find them -- if I remember correctly, at least some of the PF_NOFREEZE tasks were so marked in order to prevent suspend hangs. Part of what I need to look at. ;-) Thanx, Paul - 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/