lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] freezer: revert 27920651fe "PM / Freezer: Make fake_signal_wake_up() wake TASK_KILLABLE tasks too"
From
Date
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 09:30 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: 
> Hello, Jeff.
>
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:59:58AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > I suppose we could look at going back to the world of complicated
> > > signal handling and TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, but that's not a trivial change
> > > either. The TASK_WAKE_FREEZABLE flag you mention might make more sense
> > > than doing that.
>
> I see.
>
> > Also, since task state and signal handling clearly isn't my forte...can
> > you clarify what the main difference is in using a TASK_KILLABLE sleep
> > vs. TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE with all signals but SIGKILL blocked?
> >
> > I know that the process state would end up different (S vs. D state).
> > Is there anything else we'd need to be concerned with if we converted
> > all these call sites to use such a scheme in lieu of a new
> > TASK_WAKE_FREEZABLE flag or similar?
>
> Manipulating sigmask would work in most cases but there are corner
> cases (e.g. debug signals will force the mask off) and diddling with
> sigmask in kernel generally isn't a good idea.
>
> If TASK_KILLABLE is only used for killable && freezable, that probably
> would be the cleanest solution but given the name and the fact that
> people are in general much more aware of SIGKILL's then freezer, I
> think adding such assumption is likely to cause very subtle bugs. For
> example, mem_cgroup_handle_oom() seems to assume that if it's waken
> from TASK_KILLABLE either the condition it was waiting for is true or
> it is dying.
>
> If there are only a handful sites which need this type of behavior,
> wouldn't something like the following work?
>
> #define wait_event_freezekillable(wq, condition) \
> do { \
> DEFINE_WAIT(__wait); \
> for (;;) { \
> prepare_to_wait(&wq, &__wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); \
> if (condition || fatal_signal_pending(current)) \
> break; \
> schedule(); \
> try_to_freeze(); \
> } \
> finish_wait(&wq, &__wait); \
> } while (0)

Err... Won't this end up busy-waiting if a non-fatal signal is received?

--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer

NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com
www.netapp.com



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-01 17:51    [W:0.064 / U:1.808 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site