From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: freeze_processes questions Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:27:42 +0200 Message-ID: <20050405092742.GA1327@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200504051120.44496.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============97114018290219684==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200504051120.44496.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux-pm mailing list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org --===============97114018290219684== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi! > > I have two questions regarding freeze_processes(): > > 1) Shouldn't we take the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state into consideration? Now > we will fail if a process is sleeping when we try to freeze it. We can't allow processes to sleep at arbitrary places. Therefore we send UNINTERRUPTIBLE task a signal, and hope it can get into refrigerator in time. > 2) Is it necessary to check p->state == TASK_STOPPED and > p->state == TASK_TRACED twice in a row (once in freezable() and > then again in the next if ())? Those tests should probably be killed from if() below. As far as I can see, they can not trigger there. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! --===============97114018290219684== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --===============97114018290219684==--