On 08/02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 2 August 2007 20:40, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -171,6 +186,10 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(int freez
> > >
> > > end_time = jiffies + TIMEOUT;
> > > do {
> > > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> > > +
> > > + add_wait_queue(&refrigerator_waitq, &wait);
> >
> > Hmm. In that case I'd sugest to use prepare_to_wait(). This means that
> > multiple wakeups from refrigerator() won't do unnecessary work,
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
>
> Do you mean that if we are TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, then the first wake up
> should remove us from the queue?
No, not because we are TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, but yes, first wake up will
remove us because DEFINE_WAIT() uses autoremove_wake_function().
Oleg.
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
