On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > --- workqueue.c.org 2007-02-28 18:32:48.000000000 +0530
> > +++ workqueue.c 2007-02-28 18:44:23.000000000 +0530
> > @@ -718,6 +718,8 @@ static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(str
> > insert_wq_barrier(cwq, &barr, 1);
> > cwq->should_stop = 1;
> > alive = 1;
> > + if (frozen(cwq->thread))
> > + thaw(cwq->thread);
> > }
> > spin_unlock_irq(&cwq->lock);
>
> Unfortunately, the above code is mm-only. Is the analogous fix for 2.6.21-rc2
> viable?
I am sorry, I lost track of this problem. As for 2.6.21,
create_freezeable_workqueue
doesn't work and conflict with suspend. Why can't we remove it from XFS as you
suggested before?
Iirc,
On 02/28, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 01:08 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:01, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 00:57 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay, in that case I'd suggest removing
create_freezeable_workqueue() and
> > > > make all workqueues nonfreezable once again for 2.6.21 (as far
as I know, only
> > > > the two XFS workqueues are affected).
> > >
> > > I think Nigel might object but I forgot what specific trouble XFS
was
> > > causing him.
> >
> > We suspected that the XFS' worker threads might commit I/O after
> > freeze_processes() has returned, but that hasn't been supported by
evidence,
> > as far as I can recall.
> >
> > Also, making them freezable was controversial ...
>
> Controversy is no reason to give in! Nevertheless, I think you're
right
> - I believe the XFS guys said they fixed the issue that had caused I/O
> to be submitted post-freeze. Well, we'll see if it appears again,
won't
> we?
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/
