Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758966AbXETVHB (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 17:07:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756594AbXETVGx (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 17:06:53 -0400 Received: from mail.screens.ru ([213.234.233.54]:48877 "EHLO mail.screens.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756570AbXETVGw (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 17:06:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 01:06:42 +0400 From: Oleg Nesterov To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , Michal Piotrowski , Alex Dubov , Pierre Ossman , Pavel Machek , Gautham R Shenoy Subject: Re: Freezeable workqueues [Was: 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm] Message-ID: <20070520210642.GA342@tv-sign.ru> References: <200705132132.08546.rjw@sisk.pl> <200705152254.34402.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070520195417.GB83@tv-sign.ru> <200705202248.05857.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200705202248.05857.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: 1983 Lines: 61 On 05/20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday, 20 May 2007 21:54, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > I am a bit afraid of too many yes/no options for the freezer, a couple of naive > > questions. > > > > 1. Can't we make all wqs freezable? I still can't see the reason to have both > > freezable and not freezable wqs. > > The reason might be the same as for having freezable and nonfreezable kernel > threads in general. For example, there are some kernel threads that we need > for saving the image and I don't see why there shouldn't be any such > workqueues. OK, I see. > > 2. Why do we need CPU_TASKS_FROZEN? Can't we change cpu-hotplug to always > > freeze tasks right now, without any additional changes? > > In principle, we can, but for this purpose we'd have to modify all NOFREEZE > tasks. Why? > That wouldn't fly, I'm afraid. > > > Any subsystem should handle correctly the case when _cpu_down() (say) > > is called with tasks_frozen == 1 anyway. So, why can't we simplify > > things and do > > > > _cpu_down(int tasks_frozen) > > > > if (!tasks_frozen) > > freeze_processes(); > > ... > > > > right now? > > But we call _cpu_down() after device_suspend(), so many tasks are already > frozen at this point. We'd only need to freeze those that are not frozen and > in _cpu_up() we'd have to thaw them. Not sure I understand. When we call _cpu_down() after device_suspend(), we check tasks_frozen == 1, and do not call freeze_processes(). If the task could be frozen, it is already frozen. When _cpu_down() sees tasks_frozen = 0, it does freeze_processes() itself, and thaw_tasks() on return. IOW, we never send (say) CPU_DEAD, always CPU_DEAD_FROZEN. Wouldn't fly? 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/