From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754087AbaEAOYU (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2014 10:24:20 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.216.52]:50991 "EHLO mail-qa0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753450AbaEAOYS (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2014 10:24:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 10:24:14 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Jiri Slaby Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com, Vojtech Pavlik , Michael Matz , Jiri Kosina , Steven Rostedt , Frederic Weisbecker , Ingo Molnar , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Theodore Ts'o" , Dipankar Sarma , "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [RFC 09/16] kgr: mark task_safe in some kthreads Message-ID: <20140501142414.GA31611@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1398868249-26169-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz> <1398868249-26169-10-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1398868249-26169-10-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 04:30:42PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > Some threads do not use kthread_should_stop. Before we enable a Haven't really following kgraft development but is it safe to assume that all kthread_should_stop() usages are clean side-effect-less boundaries? If so, why is that property guaranteed? Is there any mechanism for sanity checks? Maybe I'm just failing to understand how the whole thing is supposed to work but this looks like it could devolve into something more broken than the freezer which we haven't fully recovered from yet. Thanks. -- tejun