On 02/18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 18 February 2007 00:47, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > However, this means that sys_vfork() makes impossible to freeze processes
> > until child exits/execs. Not good.
>
> Yes, but this also is the current behavior.
Yes, yes, I see.
I forgot to say that we have another problem: coredumping.
A thread which does do_coredump() send SIGKILL to ->mm users, and sleeps
on ->mm->core_startup_done. Now it can't be frozen if sub-thread goes to
refrigerator. I think this could be solved easily if we add a check to
refrigerator() as you suggested for ->vfork_donw.
> I think the real solution would be to use an interruptible completion in the
> vfork code. It was discussed some time ago and, IIRC, Ingo had an
> experimental
> patch that implemented it. Still, for the suspend this really is not an issue
> in practice, so it wasn't merged.
It is not (afaics) so trivial to do rightly, and with this change the parent
will be seen as TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE even without freezer in progress.
A very vague idea: what if parent will do
current->flags |= PF_PLEASE_CONSIDER_ME_AS_FROZEN_BUT_SET_TIF_FREEZE
wait_for_completion(&vfork);
try_to_freeze();
?
> It may be a good time to solve this problem now. :-)
Yes, I think so :)
Oleg.
-
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/
