lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] flush_cpu_workqueue: don't flush an empty ->worklist
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 09:26:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> That's not correct. freeze_processes() will freeze *all* processes.

I am not arguing whether all processes will be frozen. However my question was
on the freeze point. Let me ask the question with an example:

rtasd thread (arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/rtasd.c) executes this simple
loop:


static int rtasd(void *unused)
{

i = first_cpu(cpu_online_map);

while (1) {

set_cpus_allowed(current, cpumask_of_cpu(i)); /* can block */

/* we should now be running on cpu i */

do_something_on_a_cpu(i);

/* sleep for some time */

i = next_cpu(cpu, cpu_online_map);
}

}

This thread makes absolutely -no- calls to try_to_freeze() in its lifetime.

1. Does this mean that the thread can't be frozen? (lets say that the
thread's PF_NOFREEZE is not set)

AFAICS it can still be frozen by sending it a signal and have the signal
delivery code call try_to_freeze() ..

2. If the thread can be frozen at any arbitrary point of its execution, then I
dont see what prevents cpu_online_map from changing under the feet of rtasd
thread,

In other words, we would have failed to provide the ability to *block*
hotplug operations from happening concurrently.

> All of them are forced to enter refrigerator().
^^^^^^

*forced*, yes ..that's the point of concern ..


Warm regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-09 11:31    [W:0.253 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site