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 appen
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
> > > Jo
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
> > bette
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 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 se
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 co
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 ple
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
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 conflict
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, &barr, 1);
> > cwq->should
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(bin
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 th
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 r
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
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 cleanup_w
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(bin
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 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
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 tha
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 thread
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
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 ag
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
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 work
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 j
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 workqueue
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 t
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
D
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_dow
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 origina
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
