Re: Freezeable workqueues [Was: 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm]

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>]

On 05/20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 20 May 2007 21:54, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 
> > I am a bit afraid of too many yes/no options for the freezer, a couple of naive
> > questions.
> > 
> > 1. Can't we make all wqs freezable? I still can't see the reason to have both
> >    freezable and not freezable wqs.
> 
> The reason might be the same as for having freezable and nonfreezable kernel
> threads in general.  For example, there are some kernel threads that we need
> for saving the image and I don't see why there shouldn't be any such
> workqueues.

OK, I see.

> > 2. Why do we need CPU_TASKS_FROZEN? Can't we change cpu-hotplug to always
> >    freeze tasks right now, without any additional changes?
> 
> In principle, we can, but for this purpose we'd have to modify all NOFREEZE
> tasks.

Why?

>        That wouldn't fly, I'm afraid.
> 
> >    Any subsystem should handle correctly the case when _cpu_down() (say)
> >    is called with tasks_frozen == 1 anyway. So, why can't we simplify
> >    things and do
> > 
> >    	_cpu_down(int tasks_frozen)
> > 
> >  		if (!tasks_frozen)
> >  			freeze_processes();
> >  		...
> > 
> >   right now?
> 
> But we call _cpu_down() after device_suspend(), so many tasks are already
> frozen at this point.  We'd only need to freeze those that are not frozen and
> in _cpu_up() we'd have to thaw them.

Not sure I understand. When we call _cpu_down() after device_suspend(), we
check tasks_frozen == 1, and do not call freeze_processes(). If the task
could be frozen, it is already frozen.

When _cpu_down() sees tasks_frozen = 0, it does freeze_processes() itself,
and thaw_tasks() on return.

IOW, we never send (say) CPU_DEAD, always CPU_DEAD_FROZEN.

Wouldn't fly?

Oleg.