lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: freezer problems
On 02/19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Monday, 19 February 2007 21:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > @@ -199,6 +189,10 @@ static void thaw_tasks(int thaw_user_spa
> > >
> > > do_each_thread(g, p) {
> > > + if (freezer_should_skip(p))
> > > + cancel_freezing(p);
> > > + } while_each_thread(g, p);
> > > + do_each_thread(g, p) {
> > > if (!freezeable(p))
> > > continue;
> >
> > Any reason for 2 separate do_each_thread() loops ?
>
> Yes. If there is a "freeze" request pending for the vfork parent (TIF_FREEZE
> set), we have to cancel it before the child is unfrozen, since otherwise the
> parent may go freezing after we try to reset PF_FROZEN for it.

I see, thanks... thaw_process() doesn't take TIF_FREEZE into account.

But doesn't this mean we have a race?

Suppose that try_to_freeze_tasks() failed. It does cancel_freezing() for each
process before return, but what if some thread already checked TIF_FREEZE and
(for simplicity) it is preempted before frozen_process() in refrigerator().

thaw_tasks() runs, ignores this task (P), returns. P gets CPU, and becomes
frozen, but nobody will thaw it.

No?

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-19 23:45    [W:0.075 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site