[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0705241517110.26602@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 15:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
cc: Romano Giannetti <romanol@...omillas.es>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable@...nel.org, Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>,
Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>,
Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Then, what you do is:
> - stop user space
> - suspend
> - resume
> - start user space
Btw, this is where things like "udevd" can be really problematic. That
whole "uevent over netlink" stuff is really nasty for things like this.
It's quite possible that even for user-level threads, we simply MUST NOT
freeze them the way we do. Exactly because of deadlocks.
I'm personally really really convinced that the whole freezer thing is a
total disaster. I don't know how anybody can even imagine anything else.
It's simply deadlock city.
We should freeze IO, not processes.
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