Re: [PATCH -mm 3/7] Freezer: Remove PF_NOFREEZE from rcutorture thread

From: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>,
	Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@gmail.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 3/7] Freezer: Remove PF_NOFREEZE from rcutorture thread
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:16:15 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070302221615.GB22544@kryten> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070302213549.GC2373@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Hi Paul,

> We certainly either need to embed try_to_freeze() into kthread_should_stop()
> or add back the rcu_torture_fakewriter(), and rcu_torture_reader()
> components of this patch.  ;-)
> 
> One way to embed try_to_freeze() into kthread_should_stop() might be
> as follows:
> 
> 	int kthread_should_stop(void)
> 	{
> 		if (kthread_stop_info.k == current)
> 			return 1;
> 		try_to_freeze();
> 		return 0;
> 	}
> 
> Does this seem reasonable?  It certainly would cut down some of the
> code required for freezing -- and reduce the potential for bugs.

Thats what I was thinking too :) 

Anton