On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Right, and I had not considered that, but it turns out the hung_task
> > detector checks p->state == TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, so TASK_IDLE is indeed
> > safe from that.
>
> Also, I would assume that TASK_IDLE only makes sense for kernel
> threads, I
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:07:24 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Not to mention, tasks in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state for too long will
> > trigger hung task detection.
>
> Right, and I had not considered that, but it turns out the hung_task
> detector checks p->state == TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, so
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 01:48:10PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > commit 80ed87c8a9ca0cad7ca66cf3bbdfb17559a66dcf
> > Author: Peter Zijlstra
> > Date: Fri May 8 14:23:45 2015 +0200
> >
> > sched/wait: Introduce TASK_NOLOAD and TASK_IDLE
> >
> > Currently people use
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 05:25:26PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2015-06-08 13:39:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 12:01 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > > Just to be sure. Do you suggest to use TASK_IDLE everywhere in
> > > kthreads or only when the uninterruptible sleep
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 05:25:26PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
On Mon 2015-06-08 13:39:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 12:01 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
Just to be sure. Do you suggest to use TASK_IDLE everywhere in
kthreads or only when the uninterruptible sleep is really
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 01:48:10PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
commit 80ed87c8a9ca0cad7ca66cf3bbdfb17559a66dcf
Author: Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org
Date: Fri May 8 14:23:45 2015 +0200
sched/wait: Introduce TASK_NOLOAD and TASK_IDLE
Currently people use
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:07:24 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
Not to mention, tasks in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state for too long will
trigger hung task detection.
Right, and I had not considered that, but it turns out the hung_task
detector checks p-state ==
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Right, and I had not considered that, but it turns out the hung_task
detector checks p-state == TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, so TASK_IDLE is indeed
safe from that.
Also, I would assume that TASK_IDLE only makes sense for kernel
threads, I wonder if we
On Mon 2015-06-08 13:39:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 12:01 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > Just to be sure. Do you suggest to use TASK_IDLE everywhere in
> > kthreads or only when the uninterruptible sleep is really needed?
>
> Always, only use INTERRUPTIBLE when you're
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 12:01:07PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> BTW: What is the preferred way of freezing, please? Is it better
> to end up in the fridge or is it fine to call freezer_do_not_count();
> or set PF_NOFREEZE when it is safe?
There's no one good answer. The closest would be
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 12:01:07PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
BTW: What is the preferred way of freezing, please? Is it better
to end up in the fridge or is it fine to call freezer_do_not_count();
or set PF_NOFREEZE when it is safe?
There's no one good answer. The closest would be
On Mon 2015-06-08 13:39:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 12:01 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
Just to be sure. Do you suggest to use TASK_IDLE everywhere in
kthreads or only when the uninterruptible sleep is really needed?
Always, only use INTERRUPTIBLE when you're actually
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 18:10:21 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 05:01:08PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Many kthreads go into an interruptible sleep when there is nothing
> > to do. They should check if anyone did not requested the kthread
> > to terminate, freeze, or park in
On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 12:01 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Just to be sure. Do you suggest to use TASK_IDLE everywhere in
> kthreads or only when the uninterruptible sleep is really needed?
Always, only use INTERRUPTIBLE when you're actually interruptible, that
is you want signals or such muck to
On Fri 2015-06-05 18:10:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 05:01:08PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Many kthreads go into an interruptible sleep when there is nothing
> > to do. They should check if anyone did not requested the kthread
> > to terminate, freeze, or park in the
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 18:10:21 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 05:01:08PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
Many kthreads go into an interruptible sleep when there is nothing
to do. They should check if anyone did not requested the kthread
to terminate,
On Fri 2015-06-05 18:10:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 05:01:08PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
Many kthreads go into an interruptible sleep when there is nothing
to do. They should check if anyone did not requested the kthread
to terminate, freeze, or park in the meantime.
On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 12:01 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
Just to be sure. Do you suggest to use TASK_IDLE everywhere in
kthreads or only when the uninterruptible sleep is really needed?
Always, only use INTERRUPTIBLE when you're actually interruptible, that
is you want signals or such muck to
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 05:01:08PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Many kthreads go into an interruptible sleep when there is nothing
> to do. They should check if anyone did not requested the kthread
> to terminate, freeze, or park in the meantime. It is easy to do
> it a wrong way.
INTERRUPTIBLE is
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 05:01:08PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
Many kthreads go into an interruptible sleep when there is nothing
to do. They should check if anyone did not requested the kthread
to terminate, freeze, or park in the meantime. It is easy to do
it a wrong way.
INTERRUPTIBLE is the
20 matches
Mail list logo
