Rt-tester makes freezing processes fail.

PATCH In review Nigel Cunningham 4 participants 5 messages Jul 13, 2006 – Jul 14, 2006

lore

Share & tools

lore

Nigel Cunningham

author

2006-07-13 23:18 UTC #0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 Rt-tester makes freezing processes fail.

Hi.

Compiling in the rt-tester currently makes freezing processes fail. I don't think there's anything wrong with it running during suspending, so adding PF_NOFREEZE to the flags set seems to be the right solution.

Signed-off-by Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>

 rtmutex-tester.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

kernel/rtmutex-tester.c +1 -1

diff -ruNp 9971-rt-tester.patch-old/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c 9971-rt-tester.patch-new/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c
@@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static int test_func(void *data)
 	struct test_thread_data *td = data;
 	int ret;
 
-	current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER;
+	current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER | PF_NOFREEZE;
 	allow_signal(SIGHUP);
 
 	for(;;) {

Andrew Morton

Acked-by Thomas Gleixner on v1 1/1

2006-07-13 23:37 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 13 lines · On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:18:43 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]> wrote:

Compiling in the rt-tester currently makes freezing processes fail. I don't think there's anything wrong with it running during suspending, so adding PF_NOFREEZE to the flags set seems to be the right solution.
Signed-off-by Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
 rtmutex-tester.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -ruNp 9971-rt-tester.patch-old/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c 9971-rt-tester.patch-new/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c

kernel/rtmutex-tester.c static int test_func(void *data) · line 265

Quoted 8 lines

kernel/rtmutex-tester.c +1 -1

@@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static int test_func(void *data)
 	struct test_thread_data *td = data;
 	int ret;
 
-	current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER;
+	current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER | PF_NOFREEZE;
 	allow_signal(SIGHUP);
 
 	for(;;) {

I yesterday queued up the below patch. Which approach is most appropriate?

From: Luca Tettamanti <[email protected]>

When CONFIG_RT_MUTEX_TESTER is enabled kernel refuses to suspend the machine because it's unable to freeze the rt-test-* threads.

Add try_to_freeze() after schedule() so that the threads will be freezed correctly; I've tested the patch and it lets the notebook suspends and resumes nicely.

Signed-off-by Luca Tettamanti <[email protected]>

Cc Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

Acked-by Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

---

 kernel/rtmutex-tester.c |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+)

kernel/rtmutex-tester.c renamed from kernel/rtmutex-tester.c~add-try_to_freeze-to-rt-test-kthreads +1 -0

diff -puN kernel/rtmutex-tester.c~add-try_to_freeze-to-rt-test-kthreads kernel/rtmutex-tester.c
@@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ static int test_func(void *data)
 
 		/* Wait for the next command to be executed */
 		schedule();
+		try_to_freeze();
 
 		if (signal_pending(current))
 			flush_signals(current);

Rafael J. Wysocki

2006-07-14 08:17 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 19 lines · Andrew Morton

Quoted 16 lines · On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:18:43 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]> wrote:
Compiling in the rt-tester currently makes freezing processes fail. I don't think there's anything wrong with it running during suspending, so adding PF_NOFREEZE to the flags set seems to be the right solution.
Signed-off-by Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
 rtmutex-tester.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -ruNp 9971-rt-tester.patch-old/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c 9971-rt-tester.patch-new/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c
kernel/rtmutex-tester.c +0 -0
@@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static int test_func(void *data)
 	struct test_thread_data *td = data;
 	int ret;
 

Quoted 8 lines

kernel/rtmutex-tester.c static int test_func(void *data) · line 265
Quoted 5 lines
kernel/rtmutex-tester.c +1 -1
-	current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER;
+	current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER | PF_NOFREEZE;
 	allow_signal(SIGHUP);
 
 	for(;;) {
I yesterday queued up the below patch. Which approach is most appropriate?

I prefer the one that makes these threads freeze (ie. the Luca's patch).

Greetings,
Rafael

Pavel Machek

2006-07-14 20:33 UTC #3 lore raw

Hi!

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 1 line
I yesterday queued up the below patch. Which approach is most appropriate?
I prefer the one that makes these threads freeze (ie. the Luca's patch).

Agreed. We definitely do not want unneccessary stuff to run during suspend.
Pavel

Signature · 1 line

Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.

Nigel Cunningham

author

2006-07-14 22:38 UTC #4 lore raw

In reply to Rafael J. Wysocki

Hi.

Quoted 27 lines · Rafael J. Wysocki

Quoted 26 lines · Andrew Morton
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:18:43 +1000
Quoted 23 lines · Nigel Cunningham
Compiling in the rt-tester currently makes freezing processes fail. I don't think there's anything wrong with it running during suspending, so adding PF_NOFREEZE to the flags set seems to be the right solution.
Signed-off-by Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
 rtmutex-tester.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -ruNp 9971-rt-tester.patch-old/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c 9971-rt-tester.patch-new/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c ---
9971-rt-tester.patch-old/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c 2006-07-07
10:27:46.000000000 +1000 +++
9971-rt-tester.patch-new/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c 2006-07-14
07:48:01.000000000 +1000 @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static int test_func(void *data)
(quoted diff) +1 -1
 	struct test_thread_data *td = data;
 	int ret;
 
-	current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER;
+	current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER | PF_NOFREEZE;
 	allow_signal(SIGHUP);

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
for(;;) {
I yesterday queued up the below patch. Which approach is most appropriate?
I prefer the one that makes these threads freeze (ie. the Luca's patch).

Ok.

Nigel

Signature · 2 lines

See http://www.suspend2.net for Howtos, FAQs, mailing
lists, wiki and bugzilla info.