[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched/wait: introduce wait_event_freezable_hrtimeout
> > as far as I understand this code, freezable_schedule() avoids blocking the
> > freezer during the schedule() call, but in the end try_to_freeze() is still
> > called so the result is the same, right?
> > I wonder why wait_event_freezable is not calling freezable_schedule().
> It could be something subtle in my view. freezable_schedule() actually makes
> the freezer code not send a wake up to the sleeping task if a freeze happens,
> because the PF_FREEZER_SKIP flag is set, as you pointed.
> Whereas wait_event_freezable() which uses try_to_freeze() does not seem to have
> this behavior and the task will enter the freezer. So I'm a bit skeptical if
> your API will behave as expected (or at least consistently with other wait
> APIs).

oh right, now it is clear to me:

- schedule(); try_to_freeze()

schedule() is called and the task enters sleep. Since PF_FREEZER_SKIP is
not set, the task wakes up as soon as try_to_freeze_tasks() is called.
Right after waking up the task calls try_to_freeze() which freezes it.

- freezable_schedule()

schedule() is called and the task enters sleep. Since PF_FREEZER_SKIP is
set, the task does not wake up when try_to_freeze_tasks() is called. This
is not a problem, the task can't "do anything which isn't allowed for a
frozen task" while sleeping[0].

When the task wakes up (timeout, or whatever other reason) it calls
try_to_freeze() which freezes it if the freeze is still underway.

So if a freeze is triggered while the task is sleeping, a task executing
freezable_schedule() might or might not notice the freeze depending on how
long it sleeps. A task executing schedule(); try_to_freeze() will always
notice it.

I might be wrong on that, but freezable_schedule() just seems like a
performance improvement to me.

Now I fully agree with you that there should be a uniform definition of
"freezable" between wait_event_freezable and wait_event_freezable_hrtimeout.
This leaves me to the question: should I modify my definition of
wait_event_freezable_hrtimeout, or prepare a patch for wait_event_freezable ?

If I am right with the performance thing, the latter might be worth

Either way, this will be fixed in the v2.

> > That being said, I am not sure that the try_to_freeze() call does anything
> > in the vsoc case because there is no call to set_freezable() so the thread
> > still has PF_NOFREEZE...
> I traced this, and PF_NOFREEZE is not set by default for tasks.

Well, I did not check this in practice and might be confused somewhere but
the documentation[1] says "kernel threads are not freezable by default.
However, a kernel thread may clear PF_NOFREEZE for itself by calling

Looking at the kthreadd() definition it seems like new tasks have
PF_NOFREEZE set by default[2].

I'll take some time to check this in practice in the next days.

Anyways, thanks for your time !



Hugo Lefeuvre (hle) |
RSA4096_ 360B 03B3 BF27 4F4D 7A3F D5E8 14AA 1EB8 A247 3DFD
ed25519_ 37B2 6D38 0B25 B8A2 6B9F 3A65 A36F 5357 5F2D DC4C
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-19 11:30    [W:0.112 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site