Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 3 Feb 2007 01:01:53 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Fw: Re: [mm PATCH 4/6] RCU: (now) CPU hotplug |
| |
Hi!
> > > > static int _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu) > > > > { > > > > int err; > > > > struct task_struct *p; > > > > cpumask_t old_allowed, tmp; > > > > > > > > if (num_online_cpus() == 1) > > > > return -EBUSY; > > > > > > > > if (!cpu_online(cpu)) > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > if (freeze_processes()) { > > > > err = -EBUSY; > > > > goto out_freeze_notify_failed; > > > > } > > > > err = raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_DOWN_PREPARE, > > > > (void *)(long)cpu); > > > > > > yeah. This all looks so nice that i almost cannot believe it's true :-) > > > > Well, it turns out that maybe it is in fact untrue. :-/ > > > > I need to look at all uses of PF_NOFREEZE -- as I understand the > > code, processes marked PF_NOFREEZE will continue running, potentially > > interfering with the hotplug operation. :-( > > > > I will pass my findings on to this list. > > Well, I did it some time ago, although not very thoroughly. > > AFAICS there are not so many, but one that stands out is the worker threads. > We needed two of them to actually go to sleep, so now it's possible to create > a "freezeable workqueue" the worker thread of which will not set PF_NOFREEZE, > but currently this is only used by XFS.
We should slowly move as workqueues to freezeable ones... Having too much stuff NOFREEZE is evil, even for swsusp. Pavel
-- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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/
| |