Hi, On Tuesday, 5 of April 2005 22:37, Pavel Machek wrote: ]--snip--[ > > 2) We can try to force uninterruptible tasks to get their "signals" anyway using > > wake_up_state() directly on them (which I don't like as much). > > They are probably uninterruptible for a reason... > > If something is staying in UNINTERRUPTIBLE for more than 1 second, it > is going to cause problems elsewhere, anyway. Do you see that happening? Probably. Please see, for example, this message sent to l-k: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111268969510393&w=2 I can easily trigger a similar behavior with an uninterruptible task and I have some problems with freezing tasks on SMP that smell like this too. If we are going to ignore uninterruptible tasks, I'd propose to set PF_FREEZE and TIF_SIGPENDING for them without counting them as "todo" in freeze_processes() (if such a task is woken up afterwards by an interrupt handler, it'll get the "signal" and it'll go to the refrigerator() immediately, because of the PF_FREEZE). At least, I'd do this on resume, as we don't care for these tasks then anyway and IMHO it's not a good idea to fail because of them. I think we should also clear PF_FREEZE for uninterruptible tasks in thaw_processes(), just in case. :-) Greets, Rafael -- - Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here? - That depends a good deal on where you want to get to. -- Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
