From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:62526 "EHLO mail-gx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753328Ab1KAV5R (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2011 17:57:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:57:10 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Jeff Layton , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Steve French , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, "J. Bruce Fields" , Neil Brown , trond.myklebust@netapp.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] freezer: revert 27920651fe "PM / Freezer: Make fake_signal_wake_up() wake TASK_KILLABLE tasks too" Message-ID: <20111101215710.GA13803@google.com> References: <20111101005505.GO18855@google.com> <20111101041337.39077229@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20111101065958.50addab5@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20111101163059.GR18855@google.com> <20111101175953.GB5358@redhat.com> <20111101180601.GV18855@google.com> <20111101181329.GA6739@redhat.com> <20111101182753.GW18855@google.com> <20111101193923.GA9444@redhat.com> <20111101194601.GB9444@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20111101194601.GB9444@redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hey, Oleg. On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 08:46:01PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 11/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Or we can add TASK_FREEZABLE (like TASK_WAKEKILL), iirc we already > > discussed this some time ago. And probably it makes sense to add the > > generic wait_event_state(). > > Forgot to mention. I think that before anything else we need > signal_wake_up_state(). For example, note that none of the callers > of signal_wake_up(resume => true) in ptrace code wants to wake up > the killable task. Yeah, agreed for both wait_event_state() and signal_wake_up_state(). For now, let's go with the count/dont_count. Can you please write up a patch for that? Jeff, does this seem okay to you? For TASK_FREEZABLE, I'm not entirely sure. Combined with wait_event_state(), it can definitely reduce the number of different variants of wait_event_*(). Let's see. Thanks. -- tejun