[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH][EXPERIMENTAL] Make kernel threads nonfreezable by default

    On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 14:15 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > Please have a look at the current version of the patch (appended).
    > I have followed the Nigel's suggestion not to change the current behavior
    > in this patch (I'll add a couple of patches removing the freezability from
    > some kernel threads), with one exception: I couldn't figure out any reason
    > to have try_to_freeze() called in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:svc_recv() .

    Thanks. IIRC, svcsock is related to the NFS server code.

    > I've also added a piece of documentation, freezing-of-tasks.txt . Please
    > see if it's not missing anything (I'd like it to be quite complete).


    Mostly just grammar and the odd typo. On the whole, it's really well
    written and perfectly readable - great job!

    > Index: linux-2.6.22-rc3/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt
    > ===================================================================
    > --- /dev/null
    > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc3/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt
    > @@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
    > +Freezing of tasks
    > + (C) 2007 Rafael J. Wysocki <>, GPL
    > +
    > +I. What is the freezing of tasks?
    > +
    > +The freezing of tasks is a mechanism by which user space processes and some
    > +kernel threads are controlled during hibernation or system-wide suspend (on some
    > +architectures).
    > +
    > +II. How it works?

    How does it work?

    > +
    > +There are four per-task flags used for that, PF_NOFREEZE, PF_FROZEN, TIF_FREEZE
    > +and PF_FREEZER_SKIP (the last one is auxiliary). The tasks that have
    > +PF_NOFREEZE unset (all user space processes and some kernel threads) are
    > +regarded as 'freezable' and treated in a special way before the system enters a
    > +suspend state as well as before a hibernation image is created (in what follows
    > +we only consider hibernation, but the description also applies to suspend).
    > +
    > +Namely, as the first step of the hibernation procedure the function
    > +freeze_processes() (defined in kernel/power/process.c) is called. It executes
    > +try_to_freeze_tasks() that sets TIF_FREEZE for all of the freezable tasks and
    > +sends a fake signal to each of them. A task that receives such a signal and has
    > +TIF_FREEZE set, should react to it by calling the refrigerator() function
    > +(defined in kernel/power/process.c), which sets the task's PF_FROZEN flag,
    > +changes its state to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE and makes it loop until PF_FROZEN is
    > +cleared for it. Then, we say that the task is 'frozen' and therefore the set of
    > +functions handling this mechanism is called 'the freezer' (these functions are
    > +defined in kernel/power/process.c and include/linux/freezer.h). User space
    > +processes are generally frozen before kernel threads.
    > +
    > +It is not recommended to call refrigerator() directly. Instead, it is
    > +recommended to use the try_to_freeze() function (defined in
    > +include/linux/freezer.h), that checks the task's TIF_FREEZE flag and makes the
    > +task enter refrigerator() if the flag is set.
    > +
    > +For user space processes try_to_freeze() is called automatically from the
    > +signal-handling code, but the freezable kernel threads need to call it
    > +explicitly in suitable places. The code to do this may look like the following:
    > +
    > + do {
    > + hub_events();
    > + wait_event_interruptible(khubd_wait,
    > + !list_empty(&hub_event_list));
    > + try_to_freeze();
    > + } while (!signal_pending(current));
    > +
    > +(from drivers/usb/core/hub.c::hub_thread()).
    > +
    > +If a freezable kernel thread fails to call try_to_freeze() after the freezer has
    > +set TIF_FREEZE for it, the freezing of tasks will fail and the entire
    > +hibernation operation will be cancelled. For this reason, freezable kernel
    > +threads must call try_to_freeze() somewhere.
    > +
    > +After the system memory state has been restored from a hibernation image and
    > +devices have been reinitialized, the function thaw_processes() is called in
    > +order to clear the PF_FROZEN flag for each frozen task. Then, the tasks that
    > +have been frozen leave refrigerator() and continue running.
    > +
    > +III. Which kernel threads are freezable?
    > +
    > +Kernel threads are not freezable by default. However, a kernel thread may clear
    > +PF_NOFREEZE for itself by calling set_freezable() (the resetting of PF_NOFREEZE
    > +directly is strongly discouraged). From this point it is regarded as freezable
    > +and must call try_to_freeze() in a suitable place.
    > +
    > +IV. Why do we do that?
    > +
    > +Generally speaking, there is a couple of reasons to use the freezing of tasks:
    > +
    > +1. The principal reason is to prevent filesystems from being damaged after
    > +hibernation. Namely, for now we have no simple means of checkpointing

    s/Namely, for now/At the moment/

    No simple means or no means at all? Are you thinking of bdev freezing?

    > +filesystems, so if there are any modifications made to filesystem data and/or
    > +metadata on disks, we usually cannot bring them back to the state from before

    If the above is changed, I'd remove 'usually' here.

    > +the modifications. At the same time each hibernation image contains some
    > +filesystem-related information that must be consistent with the state of the
    > +on-disk data and metadata after the system memory state has been restored from
    > +the image (otherwise the filesystems will be damaged in a nasty way, usually
    > +making them almost impossible to repair). Therefore we freeze tasks that might

    s/Therefore we/We therefore/

    > +cause the on-disk filesystems' data and metadata to be modified after the
    > +hibernation image has been created and before the system is finally powered off.
    > +The majority of them is user space processes, but if any of kernel threads may

    s/them is/these are/

    s/of kernel/of the kernel/

    > +cause something like this to happen, they have to be freezable.
    > +
    > +2. The second reason is to prevent user space processes and some kernel threads
    > +from interfering with the suspending and resuming of devices. For example, a
    > +user space process running on a second CPU while we are suspending devices may

    I'd shift the "For example" to after "may", giving "...may, for example,
    be troublesome..."

    > +be troublesome and without the freezing of tasks we would need some safeguards
    > +against race conditions that might occur in such a case.
    > +
    > +Although Linus Torvalds doesn't like the freezing of tasks, he said this in one
    > +of the discussions on LKML (
    > +
    > +'> Why we freeze tasks at all or why we freeze kernel threads?
    > +
    > +In many ways, "at all".

    I found these first two lines confusing - I though the "Why we
    freeze..." was Linus, rather than a quotation he was responding to. I'd
    suggest starting the quote at what follows this point... but then as I
    read further, I can see the quote is necessary to make sense of the
    second paragraph below. Perhaps the best way would to put a line before
    the "Why we freeze..." indicating that you're being quoted there.

    > +I _do_ realize the IO request queue issues, and that we cannot actually do
    > +s2ram with some devices in the middle of a DMA. So we want to be able to
    > +avoid *that*, there's no question about that. And I suspect that stopping
    > +user threads and then waiting for a sync is practically one of the easier
    > +ways to do so.
    > +
    > +So in practice, the "at all" may become a "why freeze kernel threads?" and
    > +freezing user threads I don't find really objectionable.'

    Oh, and double quotes should surround the whole quote, with single
    quotes replacing the double quotes in the quotation. Hope all those
    'quote's aren't confusing! :)

    > +Still, there are kernel threads that may want to be freezable. For example, if
    > +a kernel that belongs to a device driver accesses the device directly, it in
    > +principle needs to know when the device is suspended, so that it doesn't try to
    > +access it at that time. However, if the kernel thread is freezable, it will be
    > +frozen before the driver's .suspend() callback is executed and it will be
    > +thawed after the driver's .resume() callback has run, so it won't be accessing
    > +the device while it's suspended.
    > +
    > +3. Another reason for freezing tasks is to prevent user space processes from
    > +realizing that hibernation (or suspend) operation takes place. Ideally, user
    > +space processes should not notice that such a system-wide operation has occured

    s/occured/occurred/. That word gets me too.

    > +and should continue running without any problems after the restore (or resume
    > +from suspend). Unfortunately, in the most general case this is quite difficult
    > +to achieve without the freezing of tasks. Consider, for example, a process
    > +that depends on the number of CPUs being online while it's running. Since we

    s/the number of/all/ (or secondary)

    > +need to disable nonboot CPUs during the hibernation, if this process is not
    > +frozen, it may notice that the number of CPUs has changed and may start to work
    > +incorrectly because of that.
    > +
    > +V. Are there any problems related to the freezing of tasks?
    > +
    > +Yes, there are.
    > +
    > +First of all, the freezing of kernel threads may be tricky if they depend one
    > +on another. For example, if kernel thread A waits for a completion (in the
    > +TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state) that needs to be done by freezable kernel thread B
    > +and B is frozen in the meantime, then A will be blocked until B is thawed, which
    > +may be undesirable. That's why kernel threads are not freezable by default.
    > +
    > +Second, there are the following two problems related to the freezing of user
    > +space processes:
    > +1. Putting processes into an uninterruptible sleep stuffs up the load average.

    s/stuffs up/distorts/ ('Stuffs up' is accurate as a colloquialism, but
    I'm suggesting the change because the language in the remainder of the
    file is more formal - this seems out of place).

    > +2. Now that we have FUSE, plus the framework for doing device drivers in
    > +userspace, it gets even more complicated because some userspace processes are
    > +now doing the sorts of things that kernel threads do
    > +(

    Death to them all, I say! :)

    > +The problem 1. seems to be fixable, although it hasn't been fixed so far. The
    > +other one is more serious, but it seems that we can work around it by using
    > +hibernation (and suspend) notifiers (in that case, though, we won't be able to
    > +avoid the realization by the user space processes that the hibernation is taking
    > +place).
    > +
    > +There also are problems that the freezing of tasks tends to expose, although

    s/also are/are also/

    > +they are not directly related to it. For example, if request_firmware() is
    > +called from a device driver's .resume() routine, it will timeout and eventually
    > +fail, because the user land process that should respond to the request is frozen
    > +at this point. So, seemingly, the failure is due to the freezing of tasks.
    > +Suppose, however, that the firmware file is located on a filesystem accessible
    > +only through the device that needs the firmware. In that case, the system won't
    > +be able to work normally after the restore regardless of whether or not the
    > +freezing of tasks is used. Consequently, the problem is not really related to
    > +the freezing of tasks, since it generally exists regardless. [The solution to
    > +this particular problem is to keep the firmware in memory after it's loaded for
    > +the first time and upload if from memory to the device whenever necessary.]

    I understand the logic and agree with that you're trying to say in this
    last example, but think the example is faulty. If the firmware is on a
    filesystem accessible only through the device that needs the firmware,
    then you wouldn't be able to bring it up in the first place.


    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-05-29 15:03    [W:0.068 / U:5.472 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site