-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/rcutorture.c |3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.23-rc8/kernel/rcutorture.c
===
--- linux-2.6.23-rc8.orig/kernel/rcutorture.c
+++ linux
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:24:21AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:39:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > +
> > > +/*
&
iltin_return_address(0));
>
> + rcu_preempt_boost();
> +
> need_resched:
> preempt_disable();
> prev = current;
> @@ -5060,6 +5064,7 @@ void __cpuinit init_idle(struct task_str
> idle->sleep_avg = 0;
> idle->array = NULL;
> idle->pr
+ boost implementations.
+
config LKDTM
tristate Linux Kernel Dump Test Tool Module
depends on DEBUG_KERNEL
--
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
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:24:21AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:39:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
+
+/*
+ * Return the list from which to boost target tasks.
+ * May only be invoked
ters
> */
> int rt_mutex_getprio(struct task_struct *task)
> {
> + int prio = min(task->normal_prio, get_rcu_prio(task));
> +
> if (likely(!task_has_pi_waiters(task)))
> - return task->normal_prio;
> + return prio;
>
&g
on DEBUG_KERNEL
--
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:52:04PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/29, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 05:48:53PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > (cpu-hotplug experts cc'ed)
> > >
> > > On 08/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
ned state. And on cpu_up, if the cpu is present in
the task's allowed mask, it can run on that cpu, which is a good thing.
The two users of cpuset_cpus_allowed - sched_setaffinity and pdflush
don't seem to require the online cpu information.
Paul, is there any particular reason why we need guarent
well.
It's a good idea to add that info to the MAINTAINERS file as well.
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 unsubsc
that info to the MAINTAINERS file as well.
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
and pdflush
don't seem to require the online cpu information.
Paul, is there any particular reason why we need guarentee_online_cpus
to be called in cpuset_cpus_allowed ?
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
Freedom comes with a price tag
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:52:04PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/29, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 05:48:53PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
(cpu-hotplug experts cc'ed)
On 08/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
After the brief look at kernel/cpuset.c, it seems
ny contradiction in
the kernel?! Or is there something important, I'm missing here?
>
> > Look at it this way. If we were to merge this patch then it would be
> > logical to also merge a patch which has the following description:
> >
> > "if an process attempts to pi
-EINVAL in that case, this looks a bit
more logical.
Yup, it sure does!
Oleg.
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
paranoia, but let me assure you, you are
not the only one ;-)
Regards
gautham.
>
> Thanx, Paul
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom
are
not the only one ;-)
Regards
gautham.
Thanx, Paul
--
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
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 06:15:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 03:44:44PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:54:56AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:56:39AM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
s not set
CONFIG_ZLIB_INFLATE=y
CONFIG_PLIST=y
CONFIG_HAS_IOMEM=y
CONFIG_HAS_IOPORT=y
CONFIG_HAS_DMA=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_PROBE=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_PENDING_IRQ=y
CONFIG_X86_SMP=y
CONFIG_X86_HT=y
CONFIG_X86_BIOS_REBOOT=y
CONFIG_X86_TRAMPOLINE=y
CONFIG_KTIME_SCALAR=y
---
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:54:56AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:56:39AM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
> > I feel we should still be able to use for_each_online_cpu(cpu) instead
> > of for_each_possible_cpu. Again, there's a goo
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:54:56AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:56:39AM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
I feel we should still be able to use for_each_online_cpu(cpu) instead
of for_each_possible_cpu. Again, there's a good chance that I might
be mistaken
CONFIG_GENERIC_PENDING_IRQ=y
CONFIG_X86_SMP=y
CONFIG_X86_HT=y
CONFIG_X86_BIOS_REBOOT=y
CONFIG_X86_TRAMPOLINE=y
CONFIG_KTIME_SCALAR=y
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
Freedom comes
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 06:15:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 03:44:44PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:54:56AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:56:39AM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
I feel we should
tistics to
* this_rbdp here.
*/
put_cpu();
return NOTIFY_OK;
}
}
Won't this work in this case?
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux T
NOTIFY_OK;
}
}
Won't this work in this case?
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
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 09:03:53PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/07, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 08/07, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > >
> > > A will now call kthread_bind(B, cpu1).
> > > kthread_bind(), calls wait_task_inactive(B), to ensu
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 09:03:53PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/07, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/07, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
A will now call kthread_bind(B, cpu1).
kthread_bind(), calls wait_task_inactive(B), to ensures that
B has scheduled itself out.
B is still
io);
yield();
/* Reset priority back to the original value */
set_prio(p, old_prio);
}
Thoughts?
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,
becau
);
yield();
/* Reset priority back to the original value */
set_prio(p, old_prio);
}
Thoughts?
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
patch should do
> it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Gautham Shenoy R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gautham R Shenoy
>
>
> Index: linux-2.6.23-rc1/mm/memcontrol.c
> =
]
Gautham R Shenoy
Index: linux-2.6.23-rc1/mm/memcontrol.c
===
--- linux-2.6.23-rc1.orig/mm/memcontrol.c 2007-07-30 17:27:24.0
+0530
+++ linux-2.6.23-rc1/mm/memcontrol.c 2007-07-30 18:43:40.0
if (!alien) {
> + kfree(shared);
> + kfree(nc);
> + goto bad;
> + }
> }
> cachep->array[cpu] = nc;
>
] = nc;
l3 = cachep-nodelists[node];
--
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
ret == NOTIFY_BAD) {
> + nr_calls--;
> printk("%s: attempt to bring up CPU %u failed\n",
> __FUNCTION__, cpu);
> ret = -EINVAL;
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne
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/
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still
e scalable refcounting model :)
> As mentioned, it's actually fairly easy to add verification calls to make
> sure that certain accesses are done with preemption disabled, so..
>
> Linus
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology C
/disable.
Therefore sir, we do need nice scalable refcounting model :)
As mentioned, it's actually fairly easy to add verification calls to make
sure that certain accesses are done with preemption disabled, so..
Linus
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
cpu_online_map way back when cpu hotplug was being developed. It will
> be a good idea to reintroduce that back.
>
Yes. However, there are places where people keep a local copy of
the cpu_online_map. So any access to this local copy is also not
cpu-hotplug safe. No ?
> > and it will
of
the cpu_online_map. So any access to this local copy is also not
cpu-hotplug safe. No ?
and it will nicely catch things like that.
--
Regards,
vatsa
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still
of them.
If you have come down to this point, I hope you have understood why
we went the freezer way. If you still feel that we can solve it using
a simpler, cleaner better method, I am all for it.
Why, even I would like to see this problem fixed, as much as you do,
if not more :-)
Thanks and Reg
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
hat we've overlooked some kernel
> threads which need to be made freezable, we'll be able to add the "ability to
> freeze" to these threads quite easily.
>
> Of course, that would also require us to rewrite the freezer itself quite a
> bit, but IMO it's worthy of doin
nd try to address the
> issue in the next series of patches.
I think it's a good idea.
I would want to review the patches again. The more I look at them,
the better I seem to understand the subtleties in the freezer code.
>
> Greetings,
> Rafael
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 11:27:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 12 May 2007 10:16, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
> > But I am not sure if this is the case with suspend/hibernate, since we
> > need to do a sys_sync() between try_freeze_ta
to call try_to_freeze, but a
daemonize()ed thread can.
So should we perform that check in reparent_to_kthreadd() ?
We are protected by the tasklist_lock there, no?
>
> Rafael
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a pr
, but a
daemonize()ed thread can.
So should we perform that check in reparent_to_kthreadd() ?
We are protected by the tasklist_lock there, no?
Rafael
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 11:27:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 12 May 2007 10:16, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
But I am not sure if this is the case with suspend/hibernate, since we
need to do a sys_sync() between try_freeze_tasks(FREEZE_USER_SPACE) and
try_to_freeze_tasks
think it's a good idea.
I would want to review the patches again. The more I look at them,
the better I seem to understand the subtleties in the freezer code.
Greetings,
Rafael
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
Freedom comes with a price tag
to rewrite the freezer itself quite a
bit, but IMO it's worthy of doing.
Thoughts?
Rafael
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
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 03:20:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > freezer_exempt() as of now does what its name says. I.e, exempt the
> > thread from all kinds of freeze chills.
> >
> > But with more subsystems using the process f
s of freeze chills.
But with more subsystems using the process freezer, the exemption needs
to be event specific. There may be threads which should not be frozen
for say kprobes, should be frozen for cpu-hotplug. This selective
freezing is not yet available. But it will be soon...
> --
> Ste
econd this thought.
The process freezer, if used will only safeguard cpu-hotplug, but not other
sites which use stop_machine_run.
>
> --
> SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsi
.
The process freezer, if used will only safeguard cpu-hotplug, but not other
sites which use stop_machine_run.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because
available. But it will be soon...
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== -=-= -=--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
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
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 03:20:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
freezer_exempt() as of now does what its name says. I.e, exempt the
thread from all kinds of freeze chills.
But with more subsystems using the process freezer, the exemption needs
to be event
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 04:32:56PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 04:17:24PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > Nevertheless, with the freezer based approach that we're experimenting,
> > this problem shouldn't arise. We expect the whole system to get fr
all the processes and get the system up and running again.
Yeah, the cpu-hotplug operation will fail though.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sat
Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a barg
though.
Thanks,
Sat
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
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 04:32:56PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 04:17:24PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
Nevertheless, with the freezer based approach that we're experimenting,
this problem shouldn't arise. We expect the whole system to get frozen
before we
o cpu77 in the sysfs entries on the
lpar which I was using. Looking at the kernel code, I figured out that
the MAX_CPUS for that lpar was 39 and each virtual cpu was probably
running 2 threads. That explained the 78 sysfs entries.
Thanks for the explaination anyway.
Regards
gautham.
ency intentional ?
Or is it due to the fact that in most cases,
cpu_present_map == cpu_possible_map, so lets not bother about it :-?
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,
beca
,
cpu_present_map == cpu_possible_map, so lets not bother about it :-?
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 78 sysfs entries.
Thanks for the explaination anyway.
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
unsigned long thaw_event)
> > {
> > + mutex_lock(_mutex);
> > + if (!(system_frozen_event_mask & thaw_event)) {
> > + WARN_ON(1);
>
> Hmm, I wouldn't use the WARN_ON() here. There's nothing wrong in calling
> this twice in a row as long as we
tion_call (kernel/sched.c).
So we are safe. Anyway, I apologise for causing any worry :-)
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
>
>
>
> From: Gautham R Shenoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> We are anyway kthread_stop()ping other per-cpu kernel threads after
> move_task_off_dead_cp
) in _cpu_down(), 'p' would have
been moved over to some other online cpu, due to the migrate_dead_tasks()
called in CPU_DEAD handling of migration_call (kernel/sched.c).
So we are safe. Anyway, I apologise for causing any worry :-)
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
From: Gautham R Shenoy [EMAIL
. Will rethink.
Thanks for the Review.
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
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 11:22:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:04:46 +0530 Gautham R Shenoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch
> > * Provides an interface to selectively freeze the system for different
> > events.
> > * Allows
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 11:22:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:04:46 +0530 Gautham R Shenoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch
* Provides an interface to selectively freeze the system for different
events.
* Allows tasks to exempt themselves or other tasks from
hotplug would start
using the process freezer, where EVENT_A would be SUSPEND and EVENT_B
would be HOTPLUG_CPU.
This patch applies on the top of 2.6.21-rc7-mm2 + Rafael's freezer
changes from http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/27/302.
Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/i386/
> I guess so.
>
> > Else it throws the following warnings.
>
> On which arch is that? I've tested on x86_64 ...
I compile tested it on i386 with gcc v4.1.2.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Rafael
Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
&qu
le_test_bit' from incompatible pointer type
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
_freeze_flag(p);
That means something else. clear_freeze_flag() just clears the
TFF_FREEZE flag and not necessarily everything.
Besides, this is the only place where we would need to clear all the bits
of p->freezer_flags. Not sure if having a static inline helper function
is worth it.
>
>
to clear all the bits
of p-freezer_flags. Not sure if having a static inline helper function
is worth it.
Or maybe we have it already?
We don't yet. But can if badly needed :-)
Sam
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
Freedom comes
/linux/freezer.h: In function `freezer_should_skip':
include/linux/freezer.h:152: warning: passing arg 2 of
`constant_test_bit' from incompatible pointer type
include/linux/freezer.h:152: warning: passing arg 2 of
`variable_test_bit' from incompatible pointer type
Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
arch is that? I've tested on x86_64 ...
I compile tested it on i386 with gcc v4.1.2.
Greetings,
Rafael
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
hotplug would start
using the process freezer, where EVENT_A would be SUSPEND and EVENT_B
would be HOTPLUG_CPU.
This patch applies on the top of 2.6.21-rc7-mm2 + Rafael's freezer
changes from http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/27/302.
Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/i386/kernel
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 04:36:09PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/26, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
> > Other than refrigerator, no one else calls frozen_process(). So move it from
> > include/linux/freezer.h to kernel/power/process.c.
>
> Could you also remove th
*p) parameter to frozen_process().
Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/freezer.h | 12
kernel/power/process.c | 14 +-
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7/include/linux/
with the stop_machine_run
thread as well.
I just checked with Vatsa if there was any subtle reason why they
had put in the kthread_bind() in cpu.c. Vatsa cannot seem to recollect
any and I can't see any. So let us just remove the kthread_bind.
Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
l/kthread.c line 161)
We only need to ensure in kthread_bind that the task which is being
bound is not running or exiting. Doesn't matter if it's sleeping in
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state.
Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
kernel/kthread.c |3
which is being
bound is not running or exiting. Doesn't matter if it's sleeping in
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state.
Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/kthread.c |3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7/kernel
if there was any subtle reason why they
had put in the kthread_bind() in cpu.c. Vatsa cannot seem to recollect
any and I can't see any. So let us just remove the kthread_bind.
Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/cpu.c |4
1 files changed, 4 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7
to frozen_process().
Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/freezer.h | 12
kernel/power/process.c | 14 +-
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7/include/linux/freezer.h
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 04:36:09PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 04/26, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
Other than refrigerator, no one else calls frozen_process(). So move it from
include/linux/freezer.h to kernel/power/process.c.
Could you also remove this
static inline void
t; know there's one locking bug which manifests in the bare net-2.6.22 tree,
> and I'm suspecting that there are other (albeit perhaps related) locking
> bugs triggered by something else in -mm. Something which precedes
> git-net.patch in the series file (ie: another subsystem
036f520 c9094e40 c036f4e0
> 0246
> c9094e60 c0299cc7 0002 c0299dfe c965614c
> c6f45550
> Call Trace:
> [__mutex_lock_slowpath+330/610] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x14a/0x262
> [mutex_lock+31/35] mutex_lock+0x1f/0x23
> [rtnl_lock+16/18
.
--
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!
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain
assume that there's no freezer-related problem being
demonstrated here.
Doesn't look like it ATM.
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
> path ?
>
> Yes, thanks for pointing that out.
That reminds me, shouldn't we set the child's TFF_FREEZE flag if the parent
is freezing or frozen?
>
> Should I clear it in dup_task_struct() or is there a better place?
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Cente
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 12:46:37AM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, 23 April 2007 14:35, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > > > + if (!freezer_should_exempt(current)) {
> > > task_lock(k);
> > &
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 10:39:56PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/23, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 01:12:09AM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 04/19, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > > >
> > >
tion. */
freezer_count(current);
Once the task wakes up from it's uninterruptible sleep, it will
call freezer_count which in turn calls try_to_freeze.
If the task was marked for freezing, it will be frozen now.
You may want to check the thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/18/47
on how it came into exi
_flag(p);
> wmb();
> - clear_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_FREEZE);
> + do_not_freeze(p);
We may want to rename do_not_freeze to something else. It kind of
looks weird calling do_not_freeze(p) after setting the frozen flag!
Probably, just a matter of taste :-)
> }
>
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
-
* stopped is not frozen and will not be frozen until it dies
> + */
> + freezer_exempt(k);
> + if (frozen(k))
> + clear_frozen_flag(k);
task_unlock(k);
> + }
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology C
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 01:12:09AM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/19, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
> > @@ -63,12 +74,16 @@ void refrigerator(void)
> > recalc_sigpending(); /* We sent fake signal, clean it up */
> > spin_unlock_irq(>sighand->siglock)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:02:08PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:02, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > > This patch fixes the race pointed out by Oleg Nesterov.
> > >
> > &
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:02:08PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 04/19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:02, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
This patch fixes the race pointed out by Oleg Nesterov.
* Freezer marks a thread as freezeable.
* The thread now marks
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 01:12:09AM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 04/19, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
@@ -63,12 +74,16 @@ void refrigerator(void)
recalc_sigpending(); /* We sent fake signal, clean it up */
spin_unlock_irq(current-sighand-siglock);
+ task_lock(current
))
+ clear_frozen_flag(k);
task_unlock(k);
+ }
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
701 - 800 of 944 matches
Mail list logo
