On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:42:09PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:46:17PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > frozen. The only exception is cleaning up of per-cpu threads (which is
> > not possible with processes frozen - if we can find a way to make that
> > possible, then everything can be done in CPU_DEAD).
>
> How abt a patch like below?
>
>
> --- process.c.org 2007-02-16 13:38:39.000000000 +0530
> +++ process.c 2007-02-16 13:38:59.000000000 +0530
> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ void refrigerator(void)
> recalc_sigpending(); /* We sent fake signal, clean it up */
> spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
>
> - while (frozen(current)) {
> + while (frozen(current) && !kthread_should_stop()) {
> current->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
> schedule();
> }
This looks ok, but probably we could do it in a better way.
How about an api to thaw only a specific task something like
thaw_process(struct task_struct p).
That way, the CPU_DEAD handler which wants to kthread_stop a thread
can selectively thaw the thread before it does kthread_stop.
Rafael, does this have any negative impact on the freezer design?
> This should let us do kthread_stop() in CPU_DEAD itself (while processes
> are frozen)? That would allow us to do everything from CPU_DEAD itself
> (and not have CPU_DEAD_KILL_THREADS).
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> vatsa
thanks
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
