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 44E2C9C for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com (mail-io0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F9A11C0 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:44:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f169.google.com with SMTP id s93so22756112ioi.3 for ; Sat, 09 Jul 2016 05:44:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <3875641.cvfvOBftGF@vostro.rjw.lan> From: Shuah Khan Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 06:44:44 -0600 Message-ID: To: Julia Lawall 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 Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Sat, 9 Jul 2016, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> 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. > > Likewise. > Yes. Count me in to help out on this. -- Shuah > >> >> > 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ksummit-discuss mailing list >> Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss