On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:32:01PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:17:23PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > Ok that was my point of concern. For hotplug we would ideally like
> > everyone to be frozen. If we are not freezing some (like vfork parents),
> > (rather i
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 06:03:37PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Why don't we just drop the warning? try_to_freeze_tasks() should give us a
> warning if there's anything wrong anyway.
The patches look good. I will add my hotplug changes on the top of
these.
And yeah, removing the warning
On 02/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 22 February 2007 18:44, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, attached. The first one closes the race between thaw_tasks() and
> > > the
> > > refrigerator that can occurs if the freezing fails. The seco
On Thursday, 22 February 2007 18:44, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Okay, attached. The first one closes the race between thaw_tasks() and the
> > refrigerator that can occurs if the freezing fails. The second one fixes
> > the
> > vfork problem (should go on
On 02/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Okay, attached. The first one closes the race between thaw_tasks() and the
> refrigerator that can occurs if the freezing fails. The second one fixes the
> vfork problem (should go on top of the first one).
Looks good to me.
> > Any other ideas? In any ca
On Thursday, 22 February 2007 11:47, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Okay, below is what I have right now (compilation tested on x86_64):
> >
> > This patch fixes the vfork problem by adding the PF_FREEZER_SKIP flag that
> > can be used by tasks to tell the freeze
On 02/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 02/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > @@ -207,7 +209,7 @@ static void thaw_tasks(int thaw_user_spa
> > if (is_user_space(p) == !thaw_user_space)
> > continue;
> >
> > - if (!thaw_process(p))
> > + if (!tha
On 02/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Okay, below is what I have right now (compilation tested on x86_64):
>
> This patch fixes the vfork problem by adding the PF_FREEZER_SKIP flag that
> can be used by tasks to tell the freezer not to count them as freezeable and
> making the vfork parents set t
On Wednesday, 21 February 2007 22:06, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:03:14PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, 21 February 2007 19:14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:29:01PM +0100, Rafael J.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:03:14PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, 21 February 2007 19:14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:29:01PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:32, Rafael J. Wy
On Wednesday, 21 February 2007 21:03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, 21 February 2007 19:14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:29:01PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:32, Rafael J. Wysock
On 02/21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 21 February 2007 19:14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:29:01PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:12, Oleg Nesterov wr
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:13:40PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 February 2007 19:14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:29:01PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 20 Februar
On Wednesday, 21 February 2007 19:14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:29:01PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Hm. In the case discussed above w
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:29:01PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hm. In the case discussed above we have a task that's right before calling
> > frozen_process(), so we
On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, 19 February 2007 23:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > On 02/19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday
On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:50, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > BTW, what do you think of the updated patch I sent two messages ago?
>
> Ah, sorry, I just forgot... I think it is nice.
Thanks. :-)
I've started to collect the refrigerator-related patches post
On 02/20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> BTW, what do you think of the updated patch I sent two messages ago?
Ah, sorry, I just forgot... I think it is nice.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
On Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, 19 February 2007 23:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 02/19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, 19 February 2007 21:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > @@ -199
On 02/20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Monday, 19 February 2007 23:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, 19 February 2007 21:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > > > @@ -199,6 +189,10 @@ static void thaw_tasks(int thaw_user_spa
> > > > >
> > > >
On Monday, 19 February 2007 23:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, 19 February 2007 21:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > > @@ -199,6 +189,10 @@ static void thaw_tasks(int thaw_user_spa
> > > >
> > > > do_each_thread(g, p) {
> > > > +
On 02/19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Monday, 19 February 2007 21:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > @@ -199,6 +189,10 @@ static void thaw_tasks(int thaw_user_spa
> > >
> > > do_each_thread(g, p) {
> > > + if (freezer_should_skip(p))
> > > + cancel_fre
On Monday, 19 February 2007 21:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, 18 February 2007 23:01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > --- linux-2.6.20-mm2.orig/include/asm-i386/thread_info.h
> > > > 2007-02-18 19:49:34.0 +0100
> > > > +++ linux-2.6.20-
On 02/19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 18 February 2007 23:01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > --- linux-2.6.20-mm2.orig/include/asm-i386/thread_info.h 2007-02-18
> > > 19:49:34.0 +0100
> > > +++ linux-2.6.20-mm2/include/asm-i386/thread_info.h 2007-02-18
> > > 19:50:37.00
On Sunday, 18 February 2007 23:01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Appended is a patch that does something along these lines. The necessary
> > thread_info flags are defined for i386 and x86_64, for now.
>
> I'll try to look at this patch when I am not so sl
On 02/18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Appended is a patch that does something along these lines. The necessary
> thread_info flags are defined for i386 and x86_64, for now.
I'll try to look at this patch when I am not so sleepy ...
just one small nit right now,
> --- linux-2.6.20-mm2.orig
On Sunday, 18 February 2007 15:52, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, 18 February 2007 12:31, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > However, this means that sys_vfork() makes impossible to freeze
> > > > > processes
> > > > > until child exits/execs. N
On Sunday, 18 February 2007 17:19, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, 18 February 2007 15:52, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > And now another problem: exec. de_thread() sleeps in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> > > waiting for all sub-threads to die, and we have t
On 02/18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 18 February 2007 15:52, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > And now another problem: exec. de_thread() sleeps in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> > waiting for all sub-threads to die, and we have the same "deadlock" if
> > one of them is frozen. This is nasty. Prob
On Sunday, 18 February 2007 15:52, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, 18 February 2007 12:31, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > However, this means that sys_vfork() makes impossible to freeze
> > > > > processes
> > > > > until child exits/execs. N
On 02/18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 18 February 2007 12:31, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > However, this means that sys_vfork() makes impossible to freeze
> > > > processes
> > > > until child exits/execs. Not good.
> > >
> > I forgot to say that we have another problem: core
31 matches
Mail list logo
