On 08/02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, 2 August 2007 23:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 08/02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, 2 August 2007 20:40, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > On 08/02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > @@ -171,6 +186,10 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(int freez > > > > > > > > > > end_time = jiffies + TIMEOUT; > > > > > do { > > > > > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait); > > > > > + > > > > > + add_wait_queue(&refrigerator_waitq, &wait); > > > > > > > > Hmm. In that case I'd sugest to use prepare_to_wait(). This means that > > > > multiple wakeups from refrigerator() won't do unnecessary work, > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean. > > > > > > Do you mean that if we are TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, then the first wake up > > > should remove us from the queue? > > > > No, not because we are TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, but yes, first wake up will > > remove us because DEFINE_WAIT() uses autoremove_wake_function(). > > Yes, it does, but the prepare_to_wait() version would only cause current to > become TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE before it sends freezing requests, the other > differences don't seem to matter. I'm trying to understand why it would > change > the behavior in the way you have described.
Ugh, this is not the first time when I didn't read your patch carefully, sorry! I missed that your patch already uses DEFINE_WAIT(), and I was confused by the add_wait_queue() which is usually used along with DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(). 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/