[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707052249.45495.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 22:49:44 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: 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:
> > > 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?
> >
> > OK, you made me reach for literatur on theoretical computer science.
> >
> > IMHO the range of actions a fuse server is inherently limited.
> > You must never ever block on a lock one of your clients is holding. In
> > this case the limitation is not influenced by the freezer.
>
> Obviously. But I wasn't about the server trying to acquire a lock
> held by a client. I was talking about a client trying to acquire a
> lock held by _another_ client.
>
> If this coincides with the server (or some other task which the server
> is depending on) being frozen before the clients, the freezer has a
> problem.
True, but that case can only happen if servers are frozen before clients.
You don't need a full dependency graph. A simple set sequence of two
classes of tasks will do.
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