Re: [RFC PATCH(Experimental) 0/4] Freezer based Cpu-hotplug
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Sun Feb 18 2007 - 07:20:41 EST
On Sunday, 18 February 2007 12:31, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, 18 February 2007 00:47, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > However, this means that sys_vfork() makes impossible to freeze processes
> > > until child exits/execs. Not good.
> > Yes, but this also is the current behavior.
> Yes, yes, I see.
> I forgot to say that we have another problem: coredumping.
> A thread which does do_coredump() send SIGKILL to ->mm users, and sleeps
> on ->mm->core_startup_done. Now it can't be frozen if sub-thread goes to
> refrigerator. I think this could be solved easily if we add a check to
> refrigerator() as you suggested for ->vfork_donw.
> > I think the real solution would be to use an interruptible completion in the
> > vfork code. It was discussed some time ago and, IIRC, Ingo had an experimental
> > patch that implemented it. Still, for the suspend this really is not an issue
> > in practice, so it wasn't merged.
> It is not (afaics) so trivial to do rightly, and with this change the parent
> will be seen as TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE even without freezer in progress.
> A very vague idea: what if parent will do
> current->flags |= PF_PLEASE_CONSIDER_ME_AS_FROZEN_BUT_SET_TIF_FREEZE
This should work, but we'll need a separate process flag for it. If that's
acceptable, I'd call it PF_VFORK_PARENT
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/