Re: [RFC] Cpu-hotplug: Using the Process Freezer (try2)

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

On Tuesday, 3 April 2007 14:01, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:16:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > i'm wondering about how TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks are handled by the 
> > freezer: are they assumed frozen immediately, or do we wait until they 
> > notice their PF_FREEZING and go into try_to_freeze()? I'd expect 
> > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE to be the largest source of latency. (and hence be 
> > the primary source for freezing 'failures')
> 
> Ok, we might be in some luck. I panic()ed on freezer fail and checked
> the stacktrace of the unfrozen tasks. The stacktrace of each one looks
> like:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> PID: 7697   TASK: cc354a70  CPU: 7   COMMAND: "make"
> #0 [cc37fe50] schedule at c0431752
> #1 [cc37fec4] wait_for_completion at c04318d0
> #2 [cc37ff24] do_fork at c01249a6
> #3 [cc37ff94] sys_vfork at c0103c1f
> #4 [cc37ffb4] system_call at c0104d8d
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Rafael had sent out a patch to fix the vfork race, which can be found at
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/1/212
> 
> However, the hunk
> 
> @@ -1393,7 +1394,9 @@ long do_fork(unsigned long clone_flags,
> 		tracehook_report_clone_complete(clone_flags, nr, p);
> 
> 		if (clone_flags & CLONE_VFORK) {
> +			freezer_do_not_count();
> 			wait_for_completion(&vfork);
> +			freezer_count();
> 			tracehook_report_vfork_done(p, nr);
> 		}
> 	} else {
> 
> Seems to be missing in the latest -mm's.

Good catch!

> Rafael / Andrew, 
> 	Any reasons for leaving this hunk out?

No, absolutely not.  It's needed.

Moreover, freezer-fix-vfork-problem.patch from the broken-out -rc5-mm3
contains it, so some other patch must have reverted this change.

[looks]

Ah, it's utrace-prep-2.patch .  Andrew?