On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 11:02:33AM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> This looks ok, but probably we could do it in a better way.
> How about an api to thaw only a specific task something like
> thaw_process(struct task_struct p).
I see that thaw_process already exists in freezer.h! Awesome!!
So
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 11:02:33AM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
This looks ok, but probably we could do it in a better way.
How about an api to thaw only a specific task something like
thaw_process(struct task_struct p).
I see that thaw_process already exists in freezer.h! Awesome!!
So
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:42:09PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:46:17PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > frozen. The only exception is cleaning up of per-cpu threads (which is
> > not possible with processes frozen - if we can find a way to make that
> >
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:46:05PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Instead, we can just clear PF_FROZEN before kthread_should_stop().
That should work too. Thanks!
> I don't claim this is better, but this way we don't need to add a
> subtle change to process.c.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe
On 02/16, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:46:17PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > frozen. The only exception is cleaning up of per-cpu threads (which is
> > not possible with processes frozen - if we can find a way to make that
> > possible, then everything can be
On 02/16, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:22:09PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > o Splits CPU_DEAD into two events namely
> > > - CPU_DEAD: which will be handled while the processes are still
> > > frozen.
> > >
> > > - CPU_DEAD_KILL_THREADS: To be
On 02/16, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:47:42PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > for (;;) {
> > > - if (cwq->wq->freezeable)
> > > + if (cwq->wq->freezeable) {
> >
> > Else? This is wrong. The change like this should start from making all
> >
On Friday, 16 February 2007 10:59, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:29:20AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Well, the suspend code has been developed with the assumption that frozen
> > threads stay frozen until _we_ let them thaw by calling thaw_processes().
> > I'm
>
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:29:20AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Well, the suspend code has been developed with the assumption that frozen
> threads stay frozen until _we_ let them thaw by calling thaw_processes(). I'm
> a bit afraid of this change.
Note that only kernel threads created thr'
On Friday, 16 February 2007 09:12, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:46:17PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > frozen. The only exception is cleaning up of per-cpu threads (which is
> > not possible with processes frozen - if we can find a way to make that
> > possible,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:46:17PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> frozen. The only exception is cleaning up of per-cpu threads (which is
> not possible with processes frozen - if we can find a way to make that
> possible, then everything can be done in CPU_DEAD).
How abt a patch like below?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:46:17PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
frozen. The only exception is cleaning up of per-cpu threads (which is
not possible with processes frozen - if we can find a way to make that
possible, then everything can be done in CPU_DEAD).
How abt a patch like below?
On Friday, 16 February 2007 09:12, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:46:17PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
frozen. The only exception is cleaning up of per-cpu threads (which is
not possible with processes frozen - if we can find a way to make that
possible, then
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:29:20AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the suspend code has been developed with the assumption that frozen
threads stay frozen until _we_ let them thaw by calling thaw_processes(). I'm
a bit afraid of this change.
Note that only kernel threads created thr'
On Friday, 16 February 2007 10:59, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:29:20AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the suspend code has been developed with the assumption that frozen
threads stay frozen until _we_ let them thaw by calling thaw_processes().
I'm
a bit
On 02/16, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:47:42PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
for (;;) {
- if (cwq-wq-freezeable)
+ if (cwq-wq-freezeable) {
Else? This is wrong. The change like this should start from making all
cwq-threads freezeable,
On 02/16, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:22:09PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
o Splits CPU_DEAD into two events namely
- CPU_DEAD: which will be handled while the processes are still
frozen.
- CPU_DEAD_KILL_THREADS: To be handled after we
On 02/16, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:46:17PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
frozen. The only exception is cleaning up of per-cpu threads (which is
not possible with processes frozen - if we can find a way to make that
possible, then everything can be done in
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:46:05PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Instead, we can just clear PF_FROZEN before kthread_should_stop().
That should work too. Thanks!
I don't claim this is better, but this way we don't need to add a
subtle change to process.c.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:42:09PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:46:17PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
frozen. The only exception is cleaning up of per-cpu threads (which is
not possible with processes frozen - if we can find a way to make that
possible,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:22:09PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > o Splits CPU_DEAD into two events namely
> > - CPU_DEAD: which will be handled while the processes are still
> > frozen.
> >
> > - CPU_DEAD_KILL_THREADS: To be handled after we thaw_processes.
>
>
> Imho, this
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:47:42PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > for (;;) {
> > - if (cwq->wq->freezeable)
> > + if (cwq->wq->freezeable) {
>
> Else? This is wrong. The change like this should start from making all
> cwq->threads freezeable, otherwise it just doesn't
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:47:42PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
for (;;) {
- if (cwq-wq-freezeable)
+ if (cwq-wq-freezeable) {
Else? This is wrong. The change like this should start from making all
cwq-threads freezeable, otherwise it just doesn't work.
I agree we
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:22:09PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
o Splits CPU_DEAD into two events namely
- CPU_DEAD: which will be handled while the processes are still
frozen.
- CPU_DEAD_KILL_THREADS: To be handled after we thaw_processes.
Imho, this is not right.
On 02/14, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> o Splits CPU_DEAD into two events namely
> - CPU_DEAD: which will be handled while the processes are still
> frozen.
>
> - CPU_DEAD_KILL_THREADS: To be handled after we thaw_processes.
Imho, this is not right. This change the meaning of
Gautham, I'll try to apply this patch and read the code on Sunday, right
now a couple of comments about workqueue.c changes.
On 02/14, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> --- hotplug.orig/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ hotplug/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -368,6 +368,7 @@ static int worker_thread(void *__cwq)
>
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 08:12:29PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> o Can the SYSTEM_RUNNING hack in _cpu_up be avoided by some cleaner means.
Basically freeze_processes doesnt seem to work at the early stages of
bootup (during smp_init) and hence the hack.
One option is to investigate why it
This patch implements process_freezer based cpu-hotplug
core.
The sailent features are:
o No more (un)lock_cpu_hotplug.
o No more CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE and CPU_LOCK_RELEASE. Hence no per-subsystem
hotcpu mutexes.
o Calls freeze_process/thaw_processes at the beginning/end of
the hotplug operation.
This patch implements process_freezer based cpu-hotplug
core.
The sailent features are:
o No more (un)lock_cpu_hotplug.
o No more CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE and CPU_LOCK_RELEASE. Hence no per-subsystem
hotcpu mutexes.
o Calls freeze_process/thaw_processes at the beginning/end of
the hotplug operation.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 08:12:29PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
o Can the SYSTEM_RUNNING hack in _cpu_up be avoided by some cleaner means.
Basically freeze_processes doesnt seem to work at the early stages of
bootup (during smp_init) and hence the hack.
One option is to investigate why it
Gautham, I'll try to apply this patch and read the code on Sunday, right
now a couple of comments about workqueue.c changes.
On 02/14, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
--- hotplug.orig/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ hotplug/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -368,6 +368,7 @@ static int worker_thread(void *__cwq)
On 02/14, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
o Splits CPU_DEAD into two events namely
- CPU_DEAD: which will be handled while the processes are still
frozen.
- CPU_DEAD_KILL_THREADS: To be handled after we thaw_processes.
Imho, this is not right. This change the meaning of
32 matches
Mail list logo
