FYI - I included the cifs one "cifs, freezer: add wait_event_freezekillable and have cifs use it" (and the corequisite fix for the build break when freezer not enabled) in my recent cifs merge request. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Wednesday, October 26, 2011, Jeff Layton wrote: >> > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:14:28 +0200 >> > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2011, Jeff Layton wrote: >> > > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:18:48 +0200 >> > > > Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi! >> > > > > >> > > > > > TASK_KILLABLE is often used to put tasks to sleep for quite some time. >> > > > > > One of the most common uses is to put tasks to sleep while waiting for >> > > > > > replies from a server on a networked filesystem (such as CIFS or NFS). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Unfortunately, fake_signal_wake_up does not currently wake up tasks >> > > > > > that are sleeping in TASK_KILLABLE state. This means that even if the >> > > > > > code were in place to allow them to freeze while in this sleep, it >> > > > > > wouldn't work anyway. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This patch changes this function to wake tasks in this state as well. >> > > > > > This should be harmless -- if the code doing the sleeping doesn't have >> > > > > > handling to deal with freezer events, it should just go back to sleep. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm pretty sure this will break something; but that does not mean it >> > > > > is bad idea, just that it should be merged early and tested a lot. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > FWIW, I looked at most of the places in the kernel that do >> > > > TASK_KILLABLE sleeps and they look like they'll handle this correctly. >> > > > The main one I wasn't sure about was mem_cgroup_handle_oom(), but I >> > > > think it'll do the right thing too. I certainly could have missed >> > > > something though... >> > > > >> > > > In any case, would you mind merging this via the linux-pm tree for 3.2? >> > > >> > > I will push it for 3.2. >> > > >> > >> > Hi Rafael, >> > >> > Trond asked if you would also be willing to push patches 3 and 4 in >> > this series for 3.2 as well [1]? Note that patch #4 got another revision so >> > we'll want to make sure that you get that one. I can resend the >> > nfs/sunrpc patches if that will help... >> > >> > [1]: I think Steve F is going to push patch #2, so that one shouldn't >> > be an issue. >> >> Well, I've already sent my pull request. I can keep these patches in my >> tree for the next pull request, though (I'm sure there will be fixes against >> 3.2, so they will go along with those). > > BTW, do you have current versions handy? Or hasn't they changed? > > Rafael > -- Thanks, Steve _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
