Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:57:16 +0530 | From | Gautham R Shenoy <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kthread_should_stop_check_freeze (was: Re: [PATCH -mm 3/7] Freezer: Remove PF_NOFREEZE from rcutorture thread) |
| |
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 06:49:08PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, 3 March 2007 18:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 03/02, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:33:37AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > On 03/02, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > > > One way to embed try_to_freeze() into kthread_should_stop() might be > > > > > as follows: > > > > > > > > > > int kthread_should_stop(void) > > > > > { > > > > > if (kthread_stop_info.k == current) > > > > > return 1; > > > > > try_to_freeze(); > > > > > return 0; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > I think this is dangerous. For example, worker_thread() will probably > > > > need some special actions after return from refrigerator. Also, a kernel > > > > thread may check kthread_should_stop() in the place where try_to_freeze() > > > > is not safe. > > > > > > > > Perhaps we should introduce a new helper which does this. > > > > > > Good point -- the return value from try_to_freeze() is lost if one uses > > > the above approach. About one third of the calls to try_to_freeze() > > > in 2.6.20 pay attention to the return value. > > > > > > One approach would be to have a kthread_should_stop_nofreeze() for those > > > cases, and let the default be to try to freeze. > > > > I personally think we should do the opposite, add kthread_should_stop_check_freeze() > > or something. kthread_should_stop() is like signal_pending(), we can use > > it under spin_lock (and it is probably used this way by some out-of-tree > > driver). The new helper is obviously "might_sleep()". > > Something like this, perhaps: > > include/linux/kthread.h | 1 + > kernel/kthread.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > kernel/rcutorture.c | 5 ++--- > 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2/kernel/kthread.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2.orig/kernel/kthread.c 2007-03-08 21:58:48.000000000 +0100 > +++ linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2/kernel/kthread.c 2007-03-11 18:32:59.000000000 +0100 > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ > #include <linux/file.h> > #include <linux/module.h> > #include <linux/mutex.h> > +#include <linux/freezer.h> > #include <asm/semaphore.h> > > /* > @@ -60,6 +61,21 @@ int kthread_should_stop(void) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kthread_should_stop); > > +/** > + * kthread_should_stop_check_freeze - check if the thread should return now and > + * if not, check if there is a freezing request pending for it. > + */ > +int kthread_should_stop_check_freeze(void) > +{ > + might_sleep(); > + if (kthread_stop_info.k == current) > + return 1; > + > + try_to_freeze(); > + return 0; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kthread_should_stop_check_freeze);
I would prefer to have try_to_freeze() followed by the kthread_stop_info.k check. Something like
if (try_to_freeze()) /*some barrier ensuring all writes are completed */
if (kthread_stop_info.k == current) return 1; return 0;
This would be helpful in situations (atleast for cpu-hotplug) where we want to stop a frozen thread immediately after thawing it. Something like
CPU_DEAD: thaw_process(p); kthread_stop(p); p = NULL;
Is there a problem with this line of thinking ?
thanks and regards gautham. -- Gautham R Shenoy Linux Technology Center IBM India. "Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain, because Freedom is priceless!" - 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/
| |