[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200701311114.55685.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:14:44 +0100 (MET)
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.name>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] question on resume()
Am Mittwoch, 31. Januar 2007 10:36 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> Hi!
>
> > > Yes, it will. The process freezer can only return success if there are no more
> > > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks. Otherwise it fails (after a timeout).
> >
> > So, this means, on suspend():
> >
> > 1. Don't worry about TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> > 2. Do worry about TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
> > We have to cease IO and must not call wake_up_interruptible()
>
> "cease IO"? No, I believe it is enough not to start new I/O. Userspace
> is frozen at that point, it can't ask you to do I/O.
>
> > Isn't that a race until suspend() is called?
>
> I do not think so.
What about URBs in flight which are waited for with TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE?
> > On resume():
> >
> > 1. Don't worry about TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> > 2. Do not restart IO that may call wake_up_interruptible()
> >
> > When do we restart such IO?
>
> We reuse signal handling code to do that for us. It is same situation
> as when someone signals task doing I/O.
What happens to tasks in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE which are frozen?
Are they interrupted and frozen?
Regards
Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists