On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:45:16 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday, 21 March 2007 15:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 03/21, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 19:23 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > >> > Rafael J. Wysocki napsal(a): > > > > > > > > > > Bisection shows that the freezing of processes has been broken by one of the > > > > > patches: > > > > > > > > > > remove-the-likelypid-check-in-copy_process.patch > > > > > > > > Grr. Oleg's review of remove-the-likelypid-check-in-copy-process > > > > showed it to be questionable (and it was just an optimization) > > > > so we can get rid of that one easily. > > > > > > > > Although all it did that was really questionable was add > > > > the idle process to the global process list and bump a process > > > > count when we forked the idle process. Not dramatically dangerous > > > > things. > > > > > > Could the freezer code be trying to freeze the idle thread as a result? > > > > Yes. remove-the-likelypid-check-in-copy_process.patch make idle threads > > visible to for_each_process/do_each_thread. Note also that idle threads > > have ->mm != NULL. freezer, oom_kill, move_task_off_dead_cpu, etc, should > > not see idle threads, but they do now. > > Well, I think this is a good enough reason for asking Andrew to drop this > patch. Or we change the freezer to skip pid==0 tasks. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
