Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 5/6] Freezer: Use freezing timeout more efficiently

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

On Tuesday, 10 July 2007 22:55, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, 10 July 2007 19:17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 
> > > Just watch the "todo", it it doesn't decrease during BREAK_TIMEOUT, then retry.
> > > No?
> > 
> > No, it is computed from the start in every interation and I compare the result
> > from the previous iteration with the current result.  Still, I don't compare 'todo'
> > with 'todo from the previous step' directly, because the lock up can only
> > happen if 'todo' is equal to 'blocking'.  For this reason, it is sufficient to
> > compare 'blocking' with 'prev_blocking' (ie. 'blocking' from the previous
> > step) and 'todo' with 'blocking' (the test if 'todo' > 0 is not essential;
> > well, I should remove it in accordance with my signature ;-)).
> 
> Yes, I see what the code does. My question was: why it is not good enough to just
> compare 'todo' with 'todo from the previous step' ? If 'todo' does not decrease
> during the BREAK_TIMEOUT period, probably we should retry. A fork() from user-space
> should not succeed because we send a fake signal to all tasks.

Hmm, yes,  I think that's reasonable.  I'll try to do it this way

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth