On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I have added a comment to freezer.h. Please have a look.
> >
> >
> > -extern void thaw_some_processes(int all);
> > +/*
> > + * The PF_FREEZER_SKIP flag should be set by a vfork parent rig
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Okay, I have added a comment to freezer.h. Please have a look.
>
>
> -extern void thaw_some_processes(int all);
> +/*
> + * The PF_FREEZER_SKIP flag should be set by a vfork parent right before it
> + * calls wait_for_completion(&vfork) and reset right after
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:00, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 02:23, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:53:14AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > I think it is good. Srivatsa?
> > >
> > > Maybe addit
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Which is because we don't want the kernel threads to be frozen in unexpected
> places, so we allow them to block freeze_processes() instead or to set
> PF_NOFREEZE?
Looks good!
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 02:23, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:53:14AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > I think it is good. Srivatsa?
> >
> > Maybe additional comments on why we don't skip vfork kernel tasks may be
> > good.
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 02:23, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:53:14AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I think it is good. Srivatsa?
>
> Maybe additional comments on why we don't skip vfork kernel tasks may be
> good.
Which is because we don't want the kernel threa
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:53:14AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I think it is good. Srivatsa?
Maybe additional comments on why we don't skip vfork kernel tasks may be good.
Otherwise looks ok to me. Thanks Rafael for making the changes!
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send t
On 02/27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Okay, patch updated, appended.
I think it is good. Srivatsa?
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
Ple
On Tuesday, 27 February 2007 09:37, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/27, Aneesh Kumar wrote:
> >
> > >+static inline void freezer_do_not_count(void)
> > >+{
> > >+ current->flags |= PF_FREEZER_SKIP;
> > >+}
> > >+
> > >+/*
> > >+ * Tell the freezer to count this task as freezeable again and if it
On 02/27, Aneesh Kumar wrote:
>
> >+static inline void freezer_do_not_count(void)
> >+{
> >+ current->flags |= PF_FREEZER_SKIP;
> >+}
> >+
> >+/*
> >+ * Tell the freezer to count this task as freezeable again and if it's a
> >user
> >+ * space one, try to freeze it
> >+ */
> >+static inline
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:03:53AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar wrote:
> This means that we are not going to wait for the kernel thread
> (Parent) to freeze. I guess what vatsa suggested in previous mail is
> better.
>
> freeezer_do_not_count(void)
> {
> if (current->mm) {
>
> current->flags |= PF
* Only the _current_ task can read/write to tsk->flags, but other
Index: linux-2.6.20-mm2/include/linux/freezer.h
===
--- linux-2.6.20-mm2.orig/include/linux/freezer.h 2007-02-26
08:40:22.0 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.20-mm2/
On Monday, 26 February 2007 22:25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, 26 February 2007 17:11, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 02/26, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:00:43PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > > In that cas
On 02/26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Monday, 26 February 2007 17:11, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/26, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:00:43PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > In that case we should also modify call_usermodehelper(), otherwise
> > > >
On Monday, 26 February 2007 17:11, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/26, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:00:43PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > In that case we should also modify call_usermodehelper(), otherwise
> > > we have
> > > the same "deadlock" if it is frozen
On 02/26, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:00:43PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > In that case we should also modify call_usermodehelper(), otherwise we
> > have
> > the same "deadlock" if it is frozen. But this is not so easy to do as I
> > thought
> > before.
>
> B
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:00:43PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> In that case we should also modify call_usermodehelper(), otherwise we
> have
> the same "deadlock" if it is frozen. But this is not so easy to do as I
> thought
> before.
Before call_usermodehelper can freeze, it should ha
On 02/26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> The changelog explains it pretty well, I hope, but I have one more comment to
> start with. Namely, in this version of the patch I've added
>
> + if (is_user_space(current))
> + try_to_freeze();
>
> to freezer_count() instead of just try_to_
The changelog explains it pretty well, I hope, but I have one more comment to
start with. Namely, in this version of the patch I've added
+ if (is_user_space(current))
+ try_to_freeze();
to freezer_count() instead of just try_to_freeze(). This way kernel threads
can avoid be
19 matches
Mail list logo
