From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1767183AbXDTScZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:32:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1767180AbXDTScY (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:32:24 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:39869 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767178AbXDTScX (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:32:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:31:18 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: ego@in.ibm.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Oleg Nesterov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vatsa@in.ibm.com, paulmck@us.ibm.com, pavel@ucw.cz Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH(experimental) 2/2] Fix freezer-kthread_stop race Message-ID: <20070420183118.GA695@elte.hu> References: <20070419120131.GB13435@in.ibm.com> <200704201054.38037.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070420110520.GB11290@in.ibm.com> <200704201359.30490.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070420122609.GA22325@in.ibm.com> <20070420103052.686f3c71.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070420103052.686f3c71.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > I mean, we already have four of them (PF_NOFREEZE, PF_FROZEN, > > > PF_FREEZER_SKIP, TIF_FREEZE), and you will need to introduce two > > > more for the freezer-based CPU hotplug, so if yet another one is > > > needed, that will make up almost a separate u8 field ... > > > > I am perfectly ok with it. But I am not sure if everybody would > > agree to have another field in the task struct, though in this case > > it does make sense :-) > > OK by me. You might want to consider making that fields's locking > protocol be set_bit(), clear_bit(), etc rather than task_lock(). is OK to me too, the extra field isnt a problem. Ingo