[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1I6XFM-0001ek-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:44:12 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: oliver@...kum.org
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, pavel@....cz, paulus@...ba.org,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, johannes@...solutions.net, rjw@...k.pl,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mjg59@...f.ucam.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
> Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 schrieb Miklos Szeredi:
> > > > Actually fuse allows SIGKILL, because it's always fatal, and the
> > > > syscall may not be restarted.
> > >
> > > I think you want to stick try_to_freeze() at the same places where you
> > > do SIGKILL handling. That should solve the 'syslogd is unfreezeable'
> > > problem.
> >
> > I could, but it would not solve the general problem. Namely, that the
> > presence of fuse imposes a certain ordering in which userspace tasks
> > have to be frozen. And it is not possible to know this ordering.
>
> Actually, why do you need this? There is no absolute need that you
> finish the request. You must either finish the request or let yourself
> be frozen.
>
> A quick look through fuse reveals principally request_wait_answer()
> And maybe a few other places. Is there some hidden reason you cannot
> handle being frozen here?
Yes, fuse could handle being frozen there. However that would only
solve part of the problem: an operation waiting for a reply could be
holding a VFS mutex and some other task may be blocked on that mutex.
How would you solve freezing those tasks?
Miklos
-
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