[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707032309.13966.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 23:09:13 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
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
On Tuesday, 3 July 2007 20:26, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> 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?
Hmm, if the sync is interruptible (I'm not sure), the task should be frozen while
waiting for it to complete.
Otherwise, the freezing of tasks will fail (no deadlock).
Greetings,
Rafael
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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