Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:16:51 +0000
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>, vatsa@in.ibm.com,
       Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
       Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problem with freezable workqueues
Message-ID: <20070228211651.GC4760@ucw.cz>
References: <200702272251.28844.rjw@sisk.pl> <200702282043.24779.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070228200853.GA122@tv-sign.ru> <200702282125.53318.rjw@sisk.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200702282125.53318.rjw@sisk.pl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1176
Lines: 28

Hi!

> > OK, thanks.
> > 
> > We can (I think) do pretty much the same with some additional complications
> > in worker_thread() (check !cpu_online() after try_to_freeze() and break).
> 
> Okay, but I've just finished the patch that removes the freezability of
> workqueues (appended), so can we please do this in a separate one?

Hmm, nothing obviously wrong with the patch (ACK), but xfs people
should ack this one, too: 'is it okay to let xfs run while suspending'
is not a trivial question.

> Since freezable workqueues are broken in 2.6.21-rc
> (cf. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116855740612755,
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=117261312523921&w=2)
> it's better to remove them altogether for 2.6.21 and change the only user of
> them (XFS) accordingly.

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/