Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751367AbXB1SHv (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:07:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751408AbXB1SHv (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:07:51 -0500 Received: from ausmtp05.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.154]:39643 "EHLO ausmtp05.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751367AbXB1SHv (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:07:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:36:57 +0530 From: Gautham R Shenoy To: Johannes Berg Cc: Oleg Nesterov , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Pavel Machek , LKML , Srivatsa Vaddagiri Subject: Re: Problem with freezable workqueues Message-ID: <20070228180657.GB7021@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: ego@in.ibm.com References: <200702272251.28844.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070227232855.GA457@tv-sign.ru> <1172619412.3681.11.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1172619412.3681.11.camel@johannes.berg> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1856 Lines: 46 On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:36:52AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:28 +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Ugh. I know nothing, nothing, nothing about suspend. I'll try to guess. > > > > Commit: ed746e3b18f4df18afa3763155972c5835f284c5 > > > Yes? with the patch above, _cpu_down() called _after_ freeze_processes() ??? > > perfect :) > See also my original mail and the thread: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/4314 > > > How about other kthread_stop()s ? For example, kernel/softirq.c:cpu_callback() ? > > I'd they should be affected as well. For me, I guess I haven't run into > them because xfs is enough to freeze the box ;) As for Rafael, I don't > know why he isn't seeing that... I haven't been able to test this patch > on my quad powermac so far unfortunately, been sick and away from the > machine. I'll probably be able to test tomorrow. They will be affected. In our first implemetentation of general "cpu_down after freeze"(http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/14/107) we had a new state known CPU_DEAD_KILL_THREADS, the notifications for which were being sent *after* we thawed the processes in __cpu_down. However, in the version which we are working on, we are thawing processes individually in CPU_DEAD before cleaning/stopping them. I haven't observed any bad lockups/freeze chills with this approach. But I need to test it a bit more before posting them. regards gautham. -- Gautham R Shenoy Linux Technology Center IBM India. "Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain, because Freedom is priceless!" - 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/