All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com>,
	Alex Dubov <oakad@yahoo.com>, Pierre Ossman <drzeus@drzeus.cx>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Freezeable workqueues [Was: 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 23:49:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705202349.36788.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070520210642.GA342@tv-sign.ru>

On Sunday, 20 May 2007 23:06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, 20 May 2007 21:54, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > 
> > > I am a bit afraid of too many yes/no options for the freezer, a couple of naive
> > > questions.
> > > 
> > > 1. Can't we make all wqs freezable? I still can't see the reason to have both
> > >    freezable and not freezable wqs.
> > 
> > The reason might be the same as for having freezable and nonfreezable kernel
> > threads in general.  For example, there are some kernel threads that we need
> > for saving the image and I don't see why there shouldn't be any such
> > workqueues.
> 
> OK, I see.
> 
> > > 2. Why do we need CPU_TASKS_FROZEN? Can't we change cpu-hotplug to always
> > >    freeze tasks right now, without any additional changes?
> > 
> > In principle, we can, but for this purpose we'd have to modify all NOFREEZE
> > tasks.
> 
> Why?

Ah, sorry, I didn't understand the question correctly.

> >        That wouldn't fly, I'm afraid.
> > 
> > >    Any subsystem should handle correctly the case when _cpu_down() (say)
> > >    is called with tasks_frozen == 1 anyway. So, why can't we simplify
> > >    things and do
> > > 
> > >    	_cpu_down(int tasks_frozen)
> > > 
> > >  		if (!tasks_frozen)
> > >  			freeze_processes();
> > >  		...
> > > 
> > >   right now?

Yes, we can do this, I think.
 
> > But we call _cpu_down() after device_suspend(), so many tasks are already
> > frozen at this point.  We'd only need to freeze those that are not frozen and
> > in _cpu_up() we'd have to thaw them.
> 
> Not sure I understand. When we call _cpu_down() after device_suspend(), we
> check tasks_frozen == 1, and do not call freeze_processes(). If the task
> could be frozen, it is already frozen.
> 
> When _cpu_down() sees tasks_frozen = 0, it does freeze_processes() itself,
> and thaw_tasks() on return.
> 
> IOW, we never send (say) CPU_DEAD, always CPU_DEAD_FROZEN.

Yes, that seems reasonable.

This means that every user of freezable kernel threads who installs a CPU
hotplug notifier will have to assume that its kernel threads are frozen when
the notifier is called.

Greetings,
Rafael

  reply	other threads:[~2007-05-20 21:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-05-13 19:32 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-13 20:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-13 20:30   ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-13 20:50     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-13 20:50       ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-13 21:22         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-13 21:34           ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-13 21:50             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-13 21:54               ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-13 22:21                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-13 22:32                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-14  3:24                     ` Alex Dubov
2007-05-14  5:57             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-14 16:55               ` Freezeable workqueues [Was: 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm] Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-14 21:27                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-14 21:48                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-15  0:56                     ` Alex Dubov
2007-05-15 20:54                       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-15 20:54                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-20 19:54                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-20 20:48                         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-20 21:06                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-20 21:49                             ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2007-05-13 20:33   ` 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-13 21:52 ` [PATCH] for 2.6.22, make freezeable workqueues singlethread Oleg Nesterov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200705202349.36788.rjw@sisk.pl \
    --to=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=drzeus@drzeus.cx \
    --cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com \
    --cc=oakad@yahoo.com \
    --cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.