[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070131103045.GA19640@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:30:45 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
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()
Hi!
> > > 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?
Same thing as if someone sent a signal to that process. (We are
talking about user processes here, right? Kernel threads have to take
care themselves).
> > > 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?
Interrupted with fake signal, then frozen, yes.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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