> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:16:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > i'm wondering about how TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks are handled by the
> > freezer: are they assumed frozen immediately, or do we wait until they
> > notice their PF_FREEZING and go into try_to_freeze()? I'd expect
> > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE to be the largest source of latency. (and hence be
> > the primary source for freezing 'failures')
>
> Ok, we might be in some luck. I panic()ed on freezer fail and checked
> the stacktrace of the unfrozen tasks. The stacktrace of each one looks
> like:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> PID: 7697 TASK: cc354a70 CPU: 7 COMMAND: "make"
> #0 [cc37fe50] schedule at c0431752
> #1 [cc37fec4] wait_for_completion at c04318d0
> #2 [cc37ff24] do_fork at c01249a6
> #3 [cc37ff94] sys_vfork at c0103c1f
> #4 [cc37ffb4] system_call at c0104d8d
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Rafael had sent out a patch to fix the vfork race, which can be found at
>
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/1/212
>
> However, the hunk
>
> @@ -1393,7 +1394,9 @@ long do_fork(unsigned long clone_flags,
> tracehook_report_clone_complete(clone_flags, nr, p);
>
> if (clone_flags & CLONE_VFORK) {
> + freezer_do_not_count();
> wait_for_completion(&vfork);
> + freezer_count();
> tracehook_report_vfork_done(p, nr);
> }
> } else {
>
> Seems to be missing in the latest -mm's.
