Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750698AbXBRLcJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Feb 2007 06:32:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750695AbXBRLcJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Feb 2007 06:32:09 -0500 Received: from mail.screens.ru ([213.234.233.54]:49825 "EHLO mail.screens.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750698AbXBRLcI (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Feb 2007 06:32:08 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:31:24 +0300 From: Oleg Nesterov To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: ego@in.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org, paulmck@us.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu, vatsa@in.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH(Experimental) 0/4] Freezer based Cpu-hotplug Message-ID: <20070218113124.GA100@tv-sign.ru> References: <20070214144031.GA15257@in.ibm.com> <20070217234201.GA591@tv-sign.ru> <20070217234728.GA679@tv-sign.ru> <200702181143.32538.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200702181143.32538.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1531 Lines: 45 On 02/18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday, 18 February 2007 00:47, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > However, this means that sys_vfork() makes impossible to freeze processes > > until child exits/execs. Not good. > > Yes, but this also is the current behavior. Yes, yes, I see. I forgot to say that we have another problem: coredumping. A thread which does do_coredump() send SIGKILL to ->mm users, and sleeps on ->mm->core_startup_done. Now it can't be frozen if sub-thread goes to refrigerator. I think this could be solved easily if we add a check to refrigerator() as you suggested for ->vfork_donw. > I think the real solution would be to use an interruptible completion in the > vfork code. It was discussed some time ago and, IIRC, Ingo had an experimental > patch that implemented it. Still, for the suspend this really is not an issue > in practice, so it wasn't merged. It is not (afaics) so trivial to do rightly, and with this change the parent will be seen as TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE even without freezer in progress. A very vague idea: what if parent will do current->flags |= PF_PLEASE_CONSIDER_ME_AS_FROZEN_BUT_SET_TIF_FREEZE wait_for_completion(&vfork); try_to_freeze(); ? > It may be a good time to solve this problem now. :-) Yes, I think so :) 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/