lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRE: [PATCH 1/1] PM: Thaws refrigerated and to be exited kernel threads
(Resending with 80 column restriction) 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel@ucw.cz]
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 1:57 PM
> To: Dasgupta, Romit
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] PM: Thaws refrigerated and to be
> exited kernel threads
>
> On Sun 2009-11-08 09:52:52, Dasgupta, Romit wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] PM: Thaws refrigerated and to be
> exited kernel
> > > threads
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > Kicks out a frozen thread from the refrigerator when an
> active thread has
> > > > invoked kthread_stop on the frozen thread.
> ...
> > > > @@ -49,7 +50,7 @@ void refrigerator(void)
> > > >
> > > > for (;;) {
> > > > set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > > > - if (!frozen(current))
> > > > + if (!frozen(current) || (!current->mm
> && kthread_should_stop()))
> > > > break;
> > > > schedule();
> > >
> > > Well, what if the thread does some processing before
> stopping? That
> > > would break refrigerator assumptions...
> >
> > The suspend thread will block until the 'to be stopped'
> thread clears up. That is what any call to kthread_stop would
> boil down to. The target thread would anyway be out of the
> refrigerator so I am not sure what assumption you mean here.
> Eventually, the target thread would clear up and wake up the
> suspend thread and then things would go on as usual.
>
> (Please format to 80 columns).
>
> No, I do not get it.
>
> Lets say we have
>
> evil_data_writer thread that needs to be stopped becuase it writes to
> filesystem
>
> nofreeze random_stopper thread
>
> now we create the suspend image, and start writing it out. But that's
> okay, evil_data_writer is stopped so it can't do no harm. But now
> random_stopper decides to thread_stop() the evil_data_writer, and this
> new code allows it to exit the refrigerator, *do some writing*, and
> then stop.
>
> That's bad, right?
evil_data_writer will enter refrigerator after invoking 'try_to_freeze'. This
should be followed by a call to kthread_should_stop. There it decides if it
needs to exit the thread (after cleanups if necessary) or not. I have seen that
the bdi_writeback_task function is like that. It does not care if there is
pending data to be written if it detects that someone have invoked a
'kthread_stop' on it. It simply exits. I have seen some other kernel threads
that do not follow this and I think that probably is not right.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-08 12:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans