From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752072AbXB1Iyg (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2007 03:54:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752076AbXB1Iyg (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2007 03:54:36 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:33480 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752072AbXB1Iyf (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2007 03:54:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:54:24 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Oleg Nesterov , Gautham R Shenoy , Johannes Berg , LKML , Srivatsa Vaddagiri Subject: Re: Problem with freezable workqueues Message-ID: <20070228085424.GA8442@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200702272251.28844.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070227232855.GA457@tv-sign.ru> <200702280057.36198.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200702280057.36198.rjw@sisk.pl> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > I'm afraid this is racy. We can't touch *cwq, it may be freed. Suppose > > that another thread does destroy_workqueue(), and we thaw that thread > > before cwq->thread. > > Okay, in that case I'd suggest removing create_freezeable_workqueue() and > make all workqueues nonfreezable once again for 2.6.21 (as far as I know, only > the two XFS workqueues are affected). > > Pavel, would that be acceptable? Not sure... I really dislike XFS running while we are doing swsusp. I'd like to move in direction of freezeable workqueues in the future. Anyway, if it gets us out of current trouble... yes I guess we can do it. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html