On 04/30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 04/29, Colin Cross wrote:
> >
> > @@ -46,10 +46,10 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(bool user_only)
> > todo = 0;
> > read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > do_each_thread(g, p) {
> > - if (p == current || !freeze_
On 04/29, Colin Cross wrote:
>
> @@ -46,10 +46,10 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(bool user_only)
> todo = 0;
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> do_each_thread(g, p) {
> - if (p == current || !freeze_task(p))
> + if (p
On Monday, April 29, 2013 03:16:24 PM Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 03:08:31PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > spent freezing by a factor of 5. It will have a similar effect on a
> > > non-Android system, although those generally don't care about
> > > suspend/resume optimization.
> >
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 03:08:31PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > spent freezing by a factor of 5. It will have a similar effect on a
> > non-Android system, although those generally don't care about
> > suspend/resume optimization.
>
> Yeah, if it's something which makes actual difference rather th
Hey,
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 03:02:19PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote:
> See the first patch in the series (which isn't available in the
> archive yet, so I can't link to it). The short version is that
It didn't arrive in my lkml folder either. Maybe vger is taking some
time distributing emails.
>
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 02:51:57PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> I feel a bit weary of changes which try to optimize state checks for
>> freezer because the synchronization rules are kinda fragile and things
>> may not work reliably depending on who
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 02:51:57PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I feel a bit weary of changes which try to optimize state checks for
> freezer because the synchronization rules are kinda fragile and things
> may not work reliably depending on who's testing the flag, and it has
> been subtly broken in
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 02:45:38PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote:
> If a task has called freezer_do_not_count(), don't bother waking it
> up. If it happens to wake up later it will call freezer_count() and
> immediately enter the refrigerator.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Cross
> ---
> kernel/cg
If a task has called freezer_do_not_count(), don't bother waking it
up. If it happens to wake up later it will call freezer_count() and
immediately enter the refrigerator.
Signed-off-by: Colin Cross
---
kernel/cgroup_freezer.c | 5 -
kernel/power/process.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 6 inse
9 matches
Mail list logo
