[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707051535.46196.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:35:45 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: nigel@...pend2.net
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
mjg59@...f.ucam.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
On Thursday, 5 July 2007 14:38, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Thursday 05 July 2007 22:25:06 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, 5 July 2007 01:45, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Tue 2007-07-03 21:32:20, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 schrieb Miklos Szeredi:
> > > > > > 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?
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you do if a task not yet frozen writes to a pipe, on the other
> > > > > end of which is a task already frozen?
> > >
> > > There's some difference between uninterruptible and interruptible
> > > sleep I'd say.
> > >
> > > > > It doesn't matter. The only thing that should matter during suspend
> > > > > (not hibernate) is saving the state of devices to ram, and putting the
> > > > > devices to sleep.
> > > >
> > > > Well, but you did remove sys_sync() from the freezer, which is
> > > > and must be called in the hibernate path.
> > >
> > > Not "must". In fact, hibernation should be safe without sys_sync(). It
> > > is just user un-friendly.
> >
> > In fact, I'd like to remove the sys_sync() from the freezer entirely,
> because
> > it just doesn't belong in there.
> >
> > The only advantege of having sys_sync() in freeze_processes() is that we
> > have a chance to write out everything when applications cannot produce more
> > data to write, but there are filesystems which don't do that anyway (eg.
> XFS),
> > so generally there's no reason to bother.
>
> Shouldn't XFS - and fuse - be considered to be broken? Sync should sync data
> and if XFS isn't doing that, it's wrong.
>
> In the case of fuse, we should have a mechanism by which fuse processes can be
> made to sync if they do have any pending I/O, and by which they can be frozen
> later than other userspace processes.
>
> I'd like to see the sync stay, because it improves reliability and data
> integrity in the fail-to-resume case. Calling scripts would probably invoke
> sync themselves if they don't already, but that's racy. As it is at the
> moment, we know userspace is stopped, so syncing isn't racy.
I'd like to move the sync out of the freezer, but to call it from the
suspend/hibernation code, so that we do
sys_sync();
error = freeze_processes();
etc.
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