Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:47:03 +0530
From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>,
       Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problem with freezable workqueues
Message-ID: <20070228181703.GC7021@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: ego@in.ibm.com
References: <200702272251.28844.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070227232855.GA457@tv-sign.ru> <200702280057.36198.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070228030726.GK29179@in.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070228030726.GK29179@in.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1079
Lines: 31

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:37:26AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> 
> Hmm ..good point. So can we assume that disable/enable_nonboot_cpus() are called
> with processes frozen already?
> 
> Gautham, you need to take this into account in your patchset!

Yup. That would mean making the freezer reentrant since we will
be freezing twice (once for suspend and later on for hotplug). This is
ok since the api in my patches looks like
freeze_processes(int freeze_event);

But thaw will be interesting. If we are thawing for hotplug, we gotta
only thaw processes which were frozen *only* for hotplug.

Rafael, does that mean more status flags?!

Thanks and 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/