From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754136AbXDWTEB@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754136AbXDWTEB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:04:01 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754170AbXDWTEA
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:04:00 -0400
Received: from mail.screens.ru ([213.234.233.54]:40909 "EHLO mail.screens.ru"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754136AbXDWTD7 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:03:59 -0400
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:03:40 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vatsa@in.ibm.com, paulmck@us.ibm.com,
       pavel@ucw.cz
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 3/3] freezer: Fix problem with kthread_stop
Message-ID: <20070423190340.GA283@tv-sign.ru>
References: <20070419120131.GB13435@in.ibm.com> <20070420183118.GA695@elte.hu> <200704222128.49419.rjw@sisk.pl> <200704222141.00680.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070423123558.GC25144@in.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070423123558.GC25144@in.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 04/23, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:40:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >  /*
> > @@ -232,6 +233,14 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
> > 
> >  	/* Now set kthread_should_stop() to true, and wake it up. */
> >  	kthread_stop_info.k = k;
> > +	if (!freezer_should_exempt(current)) {
> > +		/* We are freezable, so we must make sure that the thread being
> > +		 * stopped is not frozen and will not be frozen until it dies
> > +		 */
> > +		freezer_exempt(k);
> > +		if (frozen(k))
> > +			clear_frozen_flag(k);
> > +	}
> 
> I'm trying hard to convince myself that this will work. May be I am
> missing something here, but I find a potential race window (very small though) 
> when k is entering the refrigerator.
> 
> [... snip ... ]
> 
> IMO, we need the to take the task_lock for k here. Something like
> 
> > +	if (!freezer_should_exempt(current)) {
> 		task_lock(k);
> > +		/* We are freezable, so we must make sure that the thread being
> > +		 * stopped is not frozen and will not be frozen until it dies
> > +		 */
> > +		freezer_exempt(k);
> > +		if (frozen(k))
> > +			clear_frozen_flag(k);
> 		task_unlock(k);
> > +	}

Well, probably I missed something, but why can't we do

	if (!freezer_should_exempt(current)) {
		freezer_exempt(k);
		thaw_process(k);
	}
?

thaw_process(k) is properly serialized with refrigerator(), and it checks
frozen(k). We can make an extra wake_up, but this should not matter.

Rafael, please check the recent changes in kthread.c, kthread_stop() was
reworked, we don't have kthread_stop_info any longer.

Oleg.