[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0707051704580.2557-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:06:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, <pavel@....cz>,
<paulus@...ba.org>, <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
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Obviously. Â But I wasn't about the server trying to acquire a lock
> > held by a client. Â 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.
Just to make things more complicated... Since a server isn't
restricted in what it can do, what happens when one server depends on
another server?
Alan Stern
-
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