From: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>,
Linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/freezer.c : Removing extra checking.
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:31:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081211123152.GA1842@ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200812061752.58008.rjw@sisk.pl>
On Sat 2008-12-06 17:52:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 of December 2008, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> > On 12/6/08, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 6 of December 2008, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> > > > Impact: Reduces an extra checking.
> > > >
> > > > Following patch removes an extra checking. We can remove it since, the
> > > > current task is frozen. If the current task is not frozen, then it
> > > > will return from __else__ condition of freezing(current) check. So,
> > > > the check becames unnecessary. It also reduces 32 bytes of text space
> > > > on my x86 (32 bit) system.
> > >
> > >
> > > What will happen with this patch applied when a task is woken up for some
> > > reason other than thawing?
> > thawing is usually used for woken up a frozzen process. Would you
> > please tell me what are the other ways to woken up a frozzen process?
> > Am I missing anything ?
>
> Well, in theory the process can be woken up for another reason.
...like pending signal...
> I don't have any particular examples in mind, but in this case the burden is
> yours to show that it won't happen and to say why exactly you think so in the
> changelog, because this is the very reason why the code has been written this
> way in the first place.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > --- linux-2.6-orig/kernel/freezer.c 2008-12-05 19:53:45.000000000 +0600
> > > > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/freezer.c 2008-12-05 19:55:40.000000000 +0600
> > > > @@ -46,8 +46,6 @@ void refrigerator(void)
> > > >
> > > > for (;;) {
> > > > set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > > > - if (!frozen(current))
> > > > - break;
> > > > schedule();
> > > > }
> > > > pr_debug("%s left refrigerator\n", current->comm);
> > >
Plus this looks like infinite loop after your change. Have you tested
it?
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-11 12:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-06 8:20 Rakib Mullick
2008-12-06 13:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-12-06 15:04 ` Rakib Mullick
2008-12-06 16:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-12-11 12:31 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2008-12-12 15:01 ` Rakib Mullick
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081211123152.GA1842@ucw.cz \
--to=pavel@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rakib.mullick@gmail.com \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®