lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] freezer: make fake_signal_wake_up wake TASK_KILLABLE tasks too
    On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:14:28 +0200
    "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:

    > On Tuesday, October 11, 2011, Jeff Layton wrote:
    > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:18:48 +0200
    > > Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > > Hi!
    > > >
    > > > > TASK_KILLABLE is often used to put tasks to sleep for quite some time.
    > > > > One of the most common uses is to put tasks to sleep while waiting for
    > > > > replies from a server on a networked filesystem (such as CIFS or NFS).
    > > > >
    > > > > Unfortunately, fake_signal_wake_up does not currently wake up tasks
    > > > > that are sleeping in TASK_KILLABLE state. This means that even if the
    > > > > code were in place to allow them to freeze while in this sleep, it
    > > > > wouldn't work anyway.
    > > > >
    > > > > This patch changes this function to wake tasks in this state as well.
    > > > > This should be harmless -- if the code doing the sleeping doesn't have
    > > > > handling to deal with freezer events, it should just go back to sleep.
    > > >
    > > > I'm pretty sure this will break something; but that does not mean it
    > > > is bad idea, just that it should be merged early and tested a lot.
    > > >
    > >
    > > FWIW, I looked at most of the places in the kernel that do
    > > TASK_KILLABLE sleeps and they look like they'll handle this correctly.
    > > The main one I wasn't sure about was mem_cgroup_handle_oom(), but I
    > > think it'll do the right thing too. I certainly could have missed
    > > something though...
    > >
    > > In any case, would you mind merging this via the linux-pm tree for 3.2?
    >
    > I will push it for 3.2.
    >

    Hi Rafael,

    Trond asked if you would also be willing to push patches 3 and 4 in
    this series for 3.2 as well [1]? Note that patch #4 got another revision so
    we'll want to make sure that you get that one. I can resend the
    nfs/sunrpc patches if that will help...

    [1]: I think Steve F is going to push patch #2, so that one shouldn't
    be an issue.

    --
    Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-26 21:59    [W:3.110 / U:0.100 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site