On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:23:36 AM Tejun Heo wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:16:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > But OOM killer doesn't kill kernel threads as they do not own any >> > memory. So the check should be safe, no? >> >> Even for userland tasks, try_to_freeze() can currently be anywhere in >> the kernel. The frequently used ones are few but there are some odd >> ones out, and, again, there's nothing enforcing any structure on >> try_to_freeze() usage. The other thing is that we may do quite a bit >> during exiting including allocating memory. Are those safe for system >> PM? Rafael, what exactly are the rules for PM? What shouldn't >> change? > > We can't make any assumptions regarding the availability of any devices. > That is, whatever can end up in device access may potentially fail. >
So we still have to rule out PM freeze, right? I am thinking about adding a new task flag or adding a new parameter to __refrigerator() to distinguish PM freeze with cgroup freeze. Will try to code tomorrow. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
