On 08/02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> @@ -171,6 +186,10 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(int freez
>
> end_time = jiffies + TIMEOUT;
> do {
> + DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> +
> + add_wait_queue(&refrigerator_waitq, &wait);
Hmm. In that case I'd sugest to use prepare_to_wait(). This means that
multiple wakeups from refrigerator() won't do unnecessary work, and
> +
> todo = 0;
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> do_each_thread(g, p) {
> @@ -189,7 +208,12 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(int freez
> todo++;
> } while_each_thread(g, p);
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> - yield(); /* Yield is okay here */
> +
> + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + if (todo && !list_empty_careful(&wait.task_list))
> + schedule_timeout(WAIT_TIME);
we don't need to check list_empty_careful() before schedule, prepare_to_wait()
sets TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE under wait_queue_head_t->lock.
Still, I personally agree with Pavel. Perhaps it is better to just replace
yield() with schedule_timeout(a_bit).
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]
