From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: disable on suspend
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 15:11:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87d0t70zdn.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180917165518.GA25931@redhat.com> (Oleg Nesterov's message of "Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:55:18 +0200")
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
> On 09/17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 6:21 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Since you are adding the notifier anyway, what about designing it to make
>> > > > the thread wait on _PREPARE until the notifier kicks it again on exit
>> > > > fron suspend/hibernation?
>> >
>> > Well. I agree that freezable kthreads are not nice, but it seems you are
>> > going to add another questionable interface ;)
>>
>> Why would it be questionable?
>>
>> The watchdog needs to be disarmed somehow before tasks are frozen and
>> re-armed after they have been thawed or it may report false-positives
>> on the way out. PM notifiers can be used for that.
>
> Or watchdog() can simply use set_freezable/freezing interface we already
> have, without additional complications.
>
> Yes, this is not "before tasks are frozen", but probably should work?
>
> OK, I won't argue.
I was hoping you and Rafael will come to an agreement but the discussion
just died ... so where do we stand on this? I see the following options:
1) The v1 patch is good, no freezing/disabling/parking required.
2) Make the kthread freezable (btw, I tested your patch and it seems to
work).
3) kthread_stop/kthread_run() (as you said 'no parking').
4) Drop the patch and wait for the root cause (increasing jiffies) to
dissolve.
5) ???
Ideas?
--
Vitaly
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-21 13:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-13 16:08 [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: disable on suspend Vitaly Kuznetsov
2018-09-14 11:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-09-14 14:19 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2018-09-14 16:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-09-17 8:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-09-17 16:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-09-17 21:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-09-21 13:11 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov [this message]
2018-09-21 13:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-09-21 15:18 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87d0t70zdn.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com \
--to=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).