lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 09/16] kgr: mark task_safe in some kthreads
On Thu, 1 May 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:

> > Some threads do not use kthread_should_stop. Before we enable a
>
> Haven't really following kgraft development but is it safe to assume
> that all kthread_should_stop() usages are clean side-effect-less
> boundaries? If so, why is that property guaranteed? Is there any
> mechanism for sanity checks? Maybe I'm just failing to understand how
> the whole thing is supposed to work but this looks like it could
> devolve into something more broken than the freezer which we haven't
> fully recovered from yet.

Hi Tejun,

first, thanks a lot for review.

I agree that this expectation might really somewhat implicit and is not
probably properly documented anywhere. The basic observation is "whenever
kthread_should_stop() is being called, all data structures are in a
consistent state and don't need any further updates in order to achieve
consistency, because we can exit the loop immediately here", as
kthread_should_stop() is the very last thing every freezable kernel thread
is calling before starting a new iteration.

For the sake of collecting data points -- do you happen to have any
counter-example to the assumption?

Thanks,

--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-01 22:41    [W:0.348 / U:0.968 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site