On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 16:58 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Well, the only code path in which we'd want to call cancel_freezing() for kernel
> > threads is when the freezing of kernel threads. However, this only happens if
> > one of the kernel threads declares itself as freezable and the fails to call
> > try_to_freeze(), which is a bug.
>
> But this happens? We know a lot of reasons why try_to_freeze() can fail just
> because some kthread waits for already frozen task.
The freezer is a deadlock-o-matic by design. It's one of the major if
not the main reason why we don't use the code in kernel/power.c on
PowerBooks for suspend-to-ram. I don't like it and paulus hates it.
> Well, we can have very subtle problems because a kernel thread may run with
> TIF_SIGPENDING forever. This means in particualar that any wait_event_interruptible()
> can't succeed. I think this is worse than explicit failure (like -ERESSTART... leak),
> because it is hard to reproduce/debug.
Then just don't send signals to them...
> > Moreover, I'm not sure that it's a good idea at all to send signals to kernel
> > threads from the freezer, since in fact we only need to wake them up to make
> > them call try_to_freeze() (after we've set TIF_FREEZE for them).
>
> Yes! I completely agree.
Sounds like a plan...
Freezer problem 1/102893264 solved.
Ben.
-
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]
