Re: Re: freeze_processes questions

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1798 bytes --]

Hi,

On Thursday, 7 of April 2005 11:11, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > > What happens if a process owns a lock needed to suspend a device and it is 
> > > > > waiting in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE?
> > > > 
> > > > Well, we're in trouble. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > However, if any process that we have frozen owns such a lock, we're in trouble
> > > > too.
> > > 
> > > No, we are not. Processes can't own any locks when they are in
> > > refrigerator... It is not ok to call refrigerator from any context
> > > where you own a lock.
> > 
> > I didn't mean a lock in general, but a lock that is needed to
> > suspend a device.
> 
> Processes in refrigerator are not allowed to own any locks. That means
> they may not own a lock that is needed to suspend a device ;-).

I am confused now.  AFAICS, we don't check anywhere if a process we
are going to freeze holds any locks.  If we have a task in
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, we just send it a fake signal which causes it to go
to the refrigerator().  Could you please tell me how we prevent such a task
from holding any locks?  [It probably doesn't matter, at least practically,
but ...? :-)]

> OTOH... we may want to move completely away from refrigerator. Its
> quite a hack, and it device support is okay, we'll not really need it.

Still, it won't happen soon, I guess. :-)  As of today, we have the
refrigerator and the processes in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE are mishandled.
I think we should do something about it, at least for now, until we drop
the refrigerator altogether (if we are going to drop it).  That's why I
started the discussion and sent the patch.

Greets,
Rafael


-- 
- Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
- That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.
		-- Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]