On 09/03, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 06:58:39PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > This still doesn't look quite right. If the cgroup is FREEZING it should > > > also call try_to_freeze_cgroup(). I think this is what's needed: > > > > > > if (freezer->state == CGROUP_THAWED) > > > atomic_inc(&system_freezing_cnt); > > > freezer->state = CGROUP_FREEZING; > > > retval = try_to_freeze_cgroup(cgroup, freezer); > > > > This is what I mentioned before, to me this looks like a win. > > > > Why do we need try_to_freeze_cgroup() in this case? "for safety" > > could actually mean "hide the bug" ;) > > I guess it depends on the viewpoint. A simple analogy would be using > WARN_ON_ONCE() instead of BUG_ON() so that the mode of failure is > softer. This change isn't likely to make bugs significantly more > difficult to discover so why not? I agree either way. Personally I prefer your current patch. Because it is not clear why do we call try_to_freeze_cgroup() if it was already called. And, the 2nd call can silently hide the problem if we have some bug. But of course, this is up to you and Matt. > > But I agree either way. Rafael, I think 1-4 are fine, but I think > > we need the simple 5/4, will send in a minute... > > Can you please wait a bit? The second one was broken (missing unlock) Yes, I just noticed the small problem too, hopefully we mean the same bug ;) Oleg. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
