On 02/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 02/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > @@ -207,7 +209,7 @@ static void thaw_tasks(int thaw_user_spa
> > if (is_user_space(p) == !thaw_user_space)
> > continue;
> >
> > - if (!thaw_process(p))
> > + if (!thaw_process(p) && !freezer_should_skip(p))
> > printk(KERN_WARNING " Strange, %s not stopped\n",
>
> This is racy, the warning could be false. We wake up the task, testing
> its ->flags is not reliable.
>
> Damn. PF_FREEZER_SKIP task could be woken before, clear PF_FREEZER_SKIP,
> but not frozen.
>
> We can change freezer_count() to clear PF_FREEZER_SKIP after try_to_freeze(),
> not before. Now thaw_process() can take PF_FREEZER_SKIP into account and
> return "true".
>
> But this means the task may be PF_FREEZER_SKIP | PF_FROZEN. What if we we
> call try_to_freeze_tasks() soon after thaw_tasks()? We may hit the task which
> leaves the refrigerator, but didn't clear PF_FREEZER_SKIP yet. This means
> that thaw_process() should clear PF_FREEZER_SKIP as well. This is messy :(
>
> Any other ideas? In any case we should imho avoid a separate loop for
> PF_FREEZER_SKIP tasks to just fix debug messages. In fact it can't help
> anyway.
Probably: current clears PF_FREEZER_SKIP along with TIF_FREEZE "atomically"
under task_lock in refrigerator(). thaw_process() takes PF_FREEZER_SKIP into
account.
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
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
