On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 21:31 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> For now, we have decided to make the workqueues nonfreezable (the patch for
> that has already been merged, AFAICT).
It isn't in 2.6.21-rc3.
> > I wanted to adapt the BUG_ON(block IO not from suspend code)
> > patch from suspend2
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 21:31 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
For now, we have decided to make the workqueues nonfreezable (the patch for
that has already been merged, AFAICT).
It isn't in 2.6.21-rc3.
I wanted to adapt the BUG_ON(block IO not from suspend code)
patch from suspend2 but
Hi,
On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 23:25, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 21:31 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 01:30, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 22:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > For 2.6.21-rc1 I've invented the
Hi.
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 21:31 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 01:30, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 22:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > For 2.6.21-rc1 I've invented the appended workaround (works for me,
> > > waiting for
> > >
Hi,
On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 01:30, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 22:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > For 2.6.21-rc1 I've invented the appended workaround (works for me, waiting
> > for
> > Johannes to confirm it works for him too), but I think we need something
> >
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 22:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> For 2.6.21-rc1 I've invented the appended workaround (works for me, waiting
> for
> Johannes to confirm it works for him too), but I think we need something
> better
> for -mm and future kernels.
Finally I could get back to this but
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 22:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
For 2.6.21-rc1 I've invented the appended workaround (works for me, waiting
for
Johannes to confirm it works for him too), but I think we need something
better
for -mm and future kernels.
Finally I could get back to this but
Hi,
On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 01:30, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 22:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
For 2.6.21-rc1 I've invented the appended workaround (works for me, waiting
for
Johannes to confirm it works for him too), but I think we need something
better
for
Hi.
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 21:31 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 01:30, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 22:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
For 2.6.21-rc1 I've invented the appended workaround (works for me,
waiting for
Johannes to
Hi,
On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 23:25, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 21:31 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 01:30, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 22:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
For 2.6.21-rc1 I've invented the appended
On Wed 2007-02-28 23:39:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:35, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, but I've just finished the patch that removes the freezability of
> > > workqueues (appended), so can we please do this in a
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:35, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Okay, but I've just finished the patch that removes the freezability of
> > workqueues (appended), so can we please do this in a separate one?
>
> Please, please, no. This patch is of course
Hi!
> > OK, thanks.
> >
> > We can (I think) do pretty much the same with some additional complications
> > in worker_thread() (check !cpu_online() after try_to_freeze() and break).
>
> Okay, but I've just finished the patch that removes the freezability of
> workqueues (appended), so can we
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 12:14 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> 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?
I get to
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Okay, but I've just finished the patch that removes the freezability of
> workqueues (appended), so can we please do this in a separate one?
Please, please, no. This patch is of course correct, but it breaks _a lot_
of patches in -mm tree.
May I ask you to
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:08, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > I am sorry, I lost track of this problem. As for 2.6.21,
> > > create_freezeable_workqueue
> > > doesn't work and
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > 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
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > --- workqueue.c.org 2007-02-28 18:32:48.0 +0530
> > > +++ workqueue.c 2007-02-28 18:44:23.0 +0530
> > > @@ -718,6 +718,8 @@ static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(str
> >
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > --- workqueue.c.org 2007-02-28 18:32:48.0 +0530
> > +++ workqueue.c 2007-02-28 18:44:23.0 +0530
> > @@ -718,6 +718,8 @@ static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(str
> > insert_wq_barrier(cwq, , 1);
> >
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 14:17, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:11:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > In addition to thawing worker thread before kthread_stopping it, there
> > > are minor changes required in worker threads, to check for
> > >
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:17, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:37:26AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> >
> > Hmm ..good point. So can we assume that disable/enable_nonboot_cpus() are
> > called
> > with processes frozen already?
> >
> > Gautham, you need to take
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:37:26AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> Hmm ..good point. So can we assume that disable/enable_nonboot_cpus() are
> called
> with processes frozen already?
>
> Gautham, you need to take this into account in your patchset!
Yup. That would mean making the freezer
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:36:52AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:28 +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Ugh. I know nothing, nothing, nothing about suspend. I'll try to guess.
> >
> >Commit: ed746e3b18f4df18afa3763155972c5835f284c5
>
> > Yes? with the patch above,
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 14:27, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 06:47:21PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > --- workqueue.c.org 2007-02-28 18:32:48.0 +0530
> > +++ workqueue.c 2007-02-28 18:44:23.0 +0530
> > @@ -718,6 +718,8 @@ static void
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 14:17, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:11:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > In addition to thawing worker thread before kthread_stopping it, there
> > > are minor changes required in worker threads, to check for
> > >
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 06:47:21PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> --- workqueue.c.org 2007-02-28 18:32:48.0 +0530
> +++ workqueue.c 2007-02-28 18:44:23.0 +0530
> @@ -718,6 +718,8 @@ static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(str
> insert_wq_barrier(cwq, , 1);
>
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:11:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > In addition to thawing worker thread before kthread_stopping it, there
> > are minor changes required in worker threads, to check for
> > is_cpu_offline(bind_cpu) when they come out of refrigerator and jump to
> > wait_to_die
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 04:51, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:31:13AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > This problem (of kthread_stopping a frozen thread) was there when we
> > implemented freezer-based cpu hotplug. We worked around that in the
> > callbacks by
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 10:10, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/28, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > We can just thaw the worker thread selectively before kthread_stopping
> > > them. This will let us freeze all worker
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 02:14, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> 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
On 02/28, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/28, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > We can just thaw the worker thread selectively before kthread_stopping
> > > them. This will let us freeze all worker threads (which we want to for
>
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/28, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > We can just thaw the worker thread selectively before kthread_stopping
> > them. This will let us freeze all worker threads (which we want to for
> > hotplug anyway).
>
> I am not sure this is
Hi!
> > I'm afraid this is racy. We can't touch *cwq, it may be freed. Suppose
> > that another thread does destroy_workqueue(), and we thaw that thread
> > before cwq->thread.
>
> Okay, in that case I'd suggest removing create_freezeable_workqueue() and
> make all workqueues nonfreezable once
On 02/28, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:57:35AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > How about other kthread_stop()s ? For example,
> > > kernel/softirq.c:cpu_callback() ?
> >
> > They all are PF_NOFREEZE, I suppose. If we make all workqueues nonfreezable
> > (as
On 02/28, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:57:35AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
How about other kthread_stop()s ? For example,
kernel/softirq.c:cpu_callback() ?
They all are PF_NOFREEZE, I suppose. If we make all workqueues nonfreezable
(as they were
Hi!
I'm afraid this is racy. We can't touch *cwq, it may be freed. Suppose
that another thread does destroy_workqueue(), and we thaw that thread
before cwq-thread.
Okay, in that case I'd suggest removing create_freezeable_workqueue() and
make all workqueues nonfreezable once again for
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 02/28, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
We can just thaw the worker thread selectively before kthread_stopping
them. This will let us freeze all worker threads (which we want to for
hotplug anyway).
I am not sure this is a good
On 02/28, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 02/28, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
We can just thaw the worker thread selectively before kthread_stopping
them. This will let us freeze all worker threads (which we want to for
hotplug
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 02:14, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
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
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 10:10, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 02/28, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
We can just thaw the worker thread selectively before kthread_stopping
them. This will let us freeze all worker threads (which
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 04:51, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:31:13AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
This problem (of kthread_stopping a frozen thread) was there when we
implemented freezer-based cpu hotplug. We worked around that in the
callbacks by thawing
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:11:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
In addition to thawing worker thread before kthread_stopping it, there
are minor changes required in worker threads, to check for
is_cpu_offline(bind_cpu) when they come out of refrigerator and jump to
wait_to_die if so
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 06:47:21PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
--- workqueue.c.org 2007-02-28 18:32:48.0 +0530
+++ workqueue.c 2007-02-28 18:44:23.0 +0530
@@ -718,6 +718,8 @@ static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(str
insert_wq_barrier(cwq, barr, 1);
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 14:17, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:11:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
In addition to thawing worker thread before kthread_stopping it, there
are minor changes required in worker threads, to check for
is_cpu_offline(bind_cpu)
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 14:27, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 06:47:21PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
--- workqueue.c.org 2007-02-28 18:32:48.0 +0530
+++ workqueue.c 2007-02-28 18:44:23.0 +0530
@@ -718,6 +718,8 @@ static void
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:36:52AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:28 +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Ugh. I know nothing, nothing, nothing about suspend. I'll try to guess.
Commit: ed746e3b18f4df18afa3763155972c5835f284c5
Yes? with the patch above, _cpu_down()
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:37:26AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
Hmm ..good point. So can we assume that disable/enable_nonboot_cpus() are
called
with processes frozen already?
Gautham, you need to take this into account in your patchset!
Yup. That would mean making the freezer
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 19:17, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:37:26AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
Hmm ..good point. So can we assume that disable/enable_nonboot_cpus() are
called
with processes frozen already?
Gautham, you need to take this into
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 14:17, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:11:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
In addition to thawing worker thread before kthread_stopping it, there
are minor changes required in worker threads, to check for
is_cpu_offline(bind_cpu)
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
--- workqueue.c.org 2007-02-28 18:32:48.0 +0530
+++ workqueue.c 2007-02-28 18:44:23.0 +0530
@@ -718,6 +718,8 @@ static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(str
insert_wq_barrier(cwq, barr, 1);
cwq-should_stop = 1;
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
--- workqueue.c.org 2007-02-28 18:32:48.0 +0530
+++ workqueue.c 2007-02-28 18:44:23.0 +0530
@@ -718,6 +718,8 @@ static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(str
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
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?
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:08, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
I am sorry, I lost track of this problem. As for 2.6.21,
create_freezeable_workqueue
doesn't work and conflict with suspend.
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Okay, but I've just finished the patch that removes the freezability of
workqueues (appended), so can we please do this in a separate one?
Please, please, no. This patch is of course correct, but it breaks _a lot_
of patches in -mm tree.
May I ask you to
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 12:14 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
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?
I get to be
Hi!
OK, thanks.
We can (I think) do pretty much the same with some additional complications
in worker_thread() (check !cpu_online() after try_to_freeze() and break).
Okay, but I've just finished the patch that removes the freezability of
workqueues (appended), so can we please do
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:35, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Okay, but I've just finished the patch that removes the freezability of
workqueues (appended), so can we please do this in a separate one?
Please, please, no. This patch is of course correct,
On Wed 2007-02-28 23:39:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:35, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Okay, but I've just finished the patch that removes the freezability of
workqueues (appended), so can we please do this in a separate one?
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:31:13AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> This problem (of kthread_stopping a frozen thread) was there when we
> implemented freezer-based cpu hotplug. We worked around that in the
> callbacks by thawing the worker thread first before kthread_stopping it,
> which is
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:57:35AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > How about other kthread_stop()s ? For example,
> > kernel/softirq.c:cpu_callback() ?
>
> They all are PF_NOFREEZE, I suppose. If we make all workqueues nonfreezable
> (as they were before), the problem won't appear.
We can
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:51:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> We have a problem with freezable workqueues in 2.6.21-rc1 and in -mm
> (there are only two of them, in XFS, but still). Namely, their worker threads
> deadlock with workqueue_cpu_callback() that gets called durin
Hi.
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
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
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
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 01:00 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > How about other kthread_stop()s ? For example,
> > > kernel/softirq.c:cpu_callback() ?
> >
> > I'd they should be affected as well.
>
> They won't be, if they have PF_NOFREEZE set.
Yup, I missed that.
johannes
signature.asc
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 00:36, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:28 +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Ugh. I know nothing, nothing, nothing about suspend. I'll try to guess.
> >
> >Commit: ed746e3b18f4df18afa3763155972c5835f284c5
>
> > Yes? with the patch above,
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 00:28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > We have a problem with freezable workqueues in 2.6.21-rc1 and in -mm
> > (there are only two of them, in XFS, but still). Namely, their worker
>
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:28 +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Ugh. I know nothing, nothing, nothing about suspend. I'll try to guess.
>
>Commit: ed746e3b18f4df18afa3763155972c5835f284c5
> Yes? with the patch above, _cpu_down() called _after_ freeze_processes() ???
perfect :)
See also my
On 02/27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> We have a problem with freezable workqueues in 2.6.21-rc1 and in -mm
> (there are only two of them, in XFS, but still). Namely, their worker threads
> deadlock with workqueue_cpu_callback() that gets called during the CPU
> hot
Hi,
We have a problem with freezable workqueues in 2.6.21-rc1 and in -mm
(there are only two of them, in XFS, but still). Namely, their worker threads
deadlock with workqueue_cpu_callback() that gets called during the CPU hotplug,
becuase workqueue_cpu_callback() tries to stop these threads
Hi,
We have a problem with freezable workqueues in 2.6.21-rc1 and in -mm
(there are only two of them, in XFS, but still). Namely, their worker threads
deadlock with workqueue_cpu_callback() that gets called during the CPU hotplug,
becuase workqueue_cpu_callback() tries to stop these threads
On 02/27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
We have a problem with freezable workqueues in 2.6.21-rc1 and in -mm
(there are only two of them, in XFS, but still). Namely, their worker threads
deadlock with workqueue_cpu_callback() that gets called during the CPU
hotplug,
becuase
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:28 +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Ugh. I know nothing, nothing, nothing about suspend. I'll try to guess.
Commit: ed746e3b18f4df18afa3763155972c5835f284c5
Yes? with the patch above, _cpu_down() called _after_ freeze_processes() ???
perfect :)
See also my original
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 00:28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 02/27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
We have a problem with freezable workqueues in 2.6.21-rc1 and in -mm
(there are only two of them, in XFS, but still). Namely, their worker
threads
deadlock with workqueue_cpu_callback
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 00:36, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 02:28 +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Ugh. I know nothing, nothing, nothing about suspend. I'll try to guess.
Commit: ed746e3b18f4df18afa3763155972c5835f284c5
Yes? with the patch above, _cpu_down() called
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 01:00 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
How about other kthread_stop()s ? For example,
kernel/softirq.c:cpu_callback() ?
I'd they should be affected as well.
They won't be, if they have PF_NOFREEZE set.
Yup, I missed that.
johannes
signature.asc
Description:
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
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
Hi.
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
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:51:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
We have a problem with freezable workqueues in 2.6.21-rc1 and in -mm
(there are only two of them, in XFS, but still). Namely, their worker threads
deadlock with workqueue_cpu_callback() that gets called during the CPU
hotplug
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:57:35AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
How about other kthread_stop()s ? For example,
kernel/softirq.c:cpu_callback() ?
They all are PF_NOFREEZE, I suppose. If we make all workqueues nonfreezable
(as they were before), the problem won't appear.
We can just
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:31:13AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
This problem (of kthread_stopping a frozen thread) was there when we
implemented freezer-based cpu hotplug. We worked around that in the
callbacks by thawing the worker thread first before kthread_stopping it,
which is working
82 matches
Mail list logo
