[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707050858.03638.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 08:58:03 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 schrieb Paul Mackerras:
> > I have discussed the benefits elsewhere. As for the deadlocks -- do
> > you still observe them if you use the version of the freezer which
> > doesn't freeze kernel threads?
>
> In general the only way to guarantee there are no deadlocks is to
> construct the graph of dependencies between tasks. Those dependencies
> are not in practice observable from outside the tasks, so it is
> virtually impossible to construct the graph.
In which way can user space tasks depend on each other in a way that
allows a them members of that cycle to be in uninterruptible sleep?
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