* [PATCH] Washing suspend code
@ 2003-07-02 8:43 ffrederick
2003-07-02 13:10 ` Dave Jones
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: ffrederick @ 2003-07-02 8:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
-replacing INTERESTING macro by touchable_process fx
-moving flags declaration fx global
-yield after 'time_after'
-some code washing
-removing 'lock comment' we already do the read_lock() on tasklist
--- linux-2.5.73/kernel/suspend.c 2003-06-22 20:32:38.000000000 +0200
+++ edited/kernel/suspend.c 2003-07-02 10:07:44.000000000 +0200
@@ -29,6 +29,9 @@
* Alex Badea <vampire@go.ro>:
* Fixed runaway init
*
+ * Fabian Frédérick <ffrederick@users.sourceforge.net>
+ * Washing code in freeze_processes
+ *
* More state savers are welcome. Especially for the scsi layer...
*
* For TODOs,FIXMEs also look in Documentation/swsusp.txt
@@ -164,15 +167,6 @@ static const char name_resume[] = "Resum
* Refrigerator and related stuff
*/
-#define INTERESTING(p) \
- /* We don't want to touch kernel_threads..*/ \
- if (p->flags & PF_IOTHREAD) \
- continue; \
- if (p == current) \
- continue; \
- if (p->state == TASK_ZOMBIE) \
- continue;
-
/* Refrigerator is place where frozen processes are stored :-). */
void refrigerator(unsigned long flag)
{
@@ -197,12 +191,20 @@ void refrigerator(unsigned long flag)
PRINTK("%s left refrigerator\n", current->comm);
current->state = save;
}
+int touchable_process (struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ return(!((p->flags & PF_IOTHREAD) || (p == current) || (p->state == TASK_ZOMBIE)))
+
+}
-/* 0 = success, else # of processes that we failed to stop */
+/* Trying to freeze all processes without kernel threads, zombies and current
+ * Returns 0 : Success
+ * # :
+ */
int freeze_processes(void)
{
- int todo;
- unsigned long start_time;
+ int todo;
+ unsigned long start_time, flags;
struct task_struct *g, *p;
printk( "Stopping tasks: " );
@@ -211,26 +213,23 @@ int freeze_processes(void)
todo = 0;
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
do_each_thread(g, p) {
- unsigned long flags;
- INTERESTING(p);
- if (p->flags & PF_FROZEN)
- continue;
-
- /* FIXME: smp problem here: we may not access other process' flags
- without locking */
- p->flags |= PF_FREEZE;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&p->sighand->siglock, flags);
- signal_wake_up(p, 0);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->sighand->siglock, flags);
- todo++;
+ if(touchable_process(p)){
+ if (p->flags & PF_FROZEN)
+ continue;
+ p->flags |= PF_FREEZE;
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&p->sighand->siglock, flags);
+ signal_wake_up(p, 0);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->sighand->siglock, flags);
+ todo++;
+ }
} while_each_thread(g, p);
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
- yield(); /* Yield is okay here */
if (time_after(jiffies, start_time + TIMEOUT)) {
printk( "\n" );
printk(KERN_ERR " stopping tasks failed (%d tasks remaining)\n", todo );
return todo;
}
+ yield();
} while(todo);
printk( "|\n" );
@@ -245,12 +244,13 @@ void thaw_processes(void)
printk( "Restarting tasks..." );
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
do_each_thread(g, p) {
- INTERESTING(p);
-
- if (p->flags & PF_FROZEN) p->flags &= ~PF_FROZEN;
- else
- printk(KERN_INFO " Strange, %s not stopped\n", p->comm );
- wake_up_process(p);
+ if(touchable_process(p)){
+ if (p->flags & PF_FROZEN)
+ p->flags &= ~PF_FROZEN;
+ else
+ printk(KERN_INFO " Strange, %s not stopped\n", p->comm );
+ wake_up_process(p);
+ }
} while_each_thread(g, p);
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
___________________________________
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Washing suspend code
2003-07-02 8:43 [PATCH] Washing suspend code ffrederick
@ 2003-07-02 13:10 ` Dave Jones
2003-07-21 2:55 ` David Woodhouse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dave Jones @ 2003-07-02 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ffrederick; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:43:11AM +0200, ffrederick@prov-liege.be wrote:
> }
> +int touchable_process (struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + return(!((p->flags & PF_IOTHREAD) || (p == current) || (p->state == TASK_ZOMBIE)))
> +
> +}
*horror*. Please keep the formatting of the original macro.
It's a) more readable, and b) Documentation/CodingStyle compliant.
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Washing suspend code
2003-07-02 13:10 ` Dave Jones
@ 2003-07-21 2:55 ` David Woodhouse
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2003-07-21 2:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Jones; +Cc: ffrederick, linux-kernel
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 14:10, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:43:11AM +0200, ffrederick@prov-liege.be wrote:
> > }
> > +int touchable_process (struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > + return(!((p->flags & PF_IOTHREAD) || (p == current) || (p->state == TASK_ZOMBIE)))
> > +
> > +}
>
> *horror*. Please keep the formatting of the original macro.
> It's a) more readable, and b) Documentation/CodingStyle compliant.
Bugger the formatting. The original macro invocation 'INTERESTING(p)'
may invoke 'continue;' and change the flow of execution in an utterly
unobvious manner. The 'if (something) continue;' form is _definitely_
better.
--
dwmw2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-07-21 2:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-07-02 8:43 [PATCH] Washing suspend code ffrederick
2003-07-02 13:10 ` Dave Jones
2003-07-21 2:55 ` David Woodhouse
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).