On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:54:25PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, 1 March 2007 20:38, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Remove PF_NOFREEZE from the rcutorture thread, adding a
> > > try_to_freeze() call as required.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > @@ -607,6 +607,7 @@ rcu_torture_writer(void *arg)
> > > }
> > > rcu_torture_current_version++;
> > > oldbatch = cur_ops->completed();
> > > + try_to_freeze();
> > > } while (!kthread_should_stop() && !fullstop);
> > > VERBOSE_PRINTK_STRING("rcu_torture_writer task stopping");
> > > while (!kthread_should_stop())
> >
> > I wonder if it makes sense to embed try_to_freeze() into the kthread
> > API somewhere. Short of that we should document the try_to_freeze()
> > requirement in the kthread documentation... Unfortunately I cant find
> > any kthread docs in Documentation/ :)
>
> Well, the patch is from Paul, so I think he'll be able to comment. :-)
We certainly either need to embed try_to_freeze() into kthread_should_stop()
or add back the rcu_torture_fakewriter(), and rcu_torture_reader()
components of this patch. ;-)
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;
}
Does this seem reasonable? It certainly would cut down some of the
code required for freezing -- and reduce the potential for bugs.
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
