[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707032026.34649.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 20:26:34 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > > The main reason for deadlocks is because we do a sys_sync() after the
> > > freeze, which we shouldn't do.
> >
> > So why don't we remove the sys_sync() from freeze_processes() instead?
>
> The patch follows (untested).
And a further question. The freezer is not atomic. What do you do
if a task not yet frozen calls sys_sync(), but fuse is already 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