From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC57C9C for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl (cloudserver094114.home.net.pl [79.96.170.134]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F10D4146 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 23:21:53 +0000 (UTC) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Jiri Kosina Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2016 01:19:53 +0200 Message-ID: <3875641.cvfvOBftGF@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] cleaning up kthread freezer hell, part 2 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Saturday, July 09, 2016 12:31:33 AM Jiri Kosina wrote: > On last year's kernel summit, I've been talking about why I consider > kthread freezer harmful and why it ultimately should be removed. LWN > coverage of that session is here: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/662703/ > > During the past year, I've invested a bit of a time into actually looking > deeper into the dark corners of kernel sources to see how kthread freezer > is used throughout the codebase, with the intent to ultimately fix all the > buggy places. While doing that, I was petrified by two facts: > > - there are a *lot* of places where kthread freezer is used in a > completely buggy (or useless) way > > - one of the obstacles fixing it are maintainers who actually don't > understand the purpose of the kthread freezer (the usual pattern is that > the main kthread loop has been copy/pasted from different code, which > already used freezer, and so disease spreads) > > Therefore I'd propose a v2 of the last year's session; first summarizing > the horrible experience I've done on this kthread freezer journey, and as > a followup, try to (re-)explain the issue and the way I think it should be > resolved. Yes, please. Let me know if/how I can help. > The idea is to get as much coverage among high-profile maintainers as > possible, in a hope that this will result in ultimate tree-wide cleanup of > the current mess. That's why I propose this as a core topic rather than > tech topic, although it might sound like a rather bordeline one. I guess that first needs to be "core" so it can become "tech" later when everybody is on the same page in general. Thanks, Rafael