[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200705152254.28911.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 22:54:27 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alex Dubov <oakad@...oo.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
Pierre Ossman <drzeus@...eus.cx>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Freezeable workqueues [Was: 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm]
On Tuesday, 15 May 2007 02:56, Alex Dubov wrote:
> >
> > > > - Do we need freezeable workqueues ?
> > >
> > > Well, we have at least one case in which they appear to be useful.
> >
>
> I need freezeable wq exactly for the fact that they are synchronized with suspend/resume. My
> workitem may do device_register/unregister and it can (and will be) scheduled from irq handler
> during resume. As far as I understand, before freezeable wqs, kthreads were the only way to
> achieve this behavior,
That's correct.
> which is less convenient.
Thanks for the explanation.
Greetings,
Rafael
-
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