[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: [RFC] Cpu-hotplug: Using the Process Freezer (try2)
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:16:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i'm wondering about how TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks are handled by the
> freezer: are they assumed frozen immediately, or do we wait until they
> notice their PF_FREEZING and go into try_to_freeze()? I'd expect
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE to be the largest source of latency. (and hence be
> the primary source for freezing 'failures')

Ok, we might be in some luck. I panic()ed on freezer fail and checked
the stacktrace of the unfrozen tasks. The stacktrace of each one looks
PID: 7697 TASK: cc354a70 CPU: 7 COMMAND: "make"
#0 [cc37fe50] schedule at c0431752
#1 [cc37fec4] wait_for_completion at c04318d0
#2 [cc37ff24] do_fork at c01249a6
#3 [cc37ff94] sys_vfork at c0103c1f
#4 [cc37ffb4] system_call at c0104d8d

Rafael had sent out a patch to fix the vfork race, which can be found at

However, the hunk

@@ -1393,7 +1394,9 @@ long do_fork(unsigned long clone_flags,
tracehook_report_clone_complete(clone_flags, nr, p);

if (clone_flags & CLONE_VFORK) {
+ freezer_do_not_count();
+ freezer_count();
tracehook_report_vfork_done(p, nr);
} else {

Seems to be missing in the latest -mm's.

Rafael / Andrew,
Any reasons for leaving this hunk out?

I will rerun my tests with this hunk applied and report back.

> Ingo

Thanks and Regards
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-03 21:03    [W:0.291 / U:8.344 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site