[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0704281421140.9964@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Subject: Re: Back to the future.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > The freezer has *caused* those deadlocks (eg by stopping threads that were
> > needed for the suspend writeouts to succeed!), not solved them.
>
> I can't remember anything like this, but I believe you have a specific test
> case in mind.
Ehh.. Why do you thik we _have_ that PF_NOFREEZE thing in the first place?
Rafael, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Just _look_ at them. It's the IO threads etc that shouldn't be frozen,
exactly *because* they do IO. You claim that kernel threads shouldn't do
IO, but that's the point: if you cannot do IO when snapshotting to disk,
here's a damn big clue for you: how do you think that snapshot is going to
get written?
I *guarantee* you that we've had a lot more problems with threads that
should *not* have been frozen than with those hypothetical threads that
you think should have been frozen.
Linus
-
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