[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707051024.23528.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:24:22 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: paulus@...ba.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
johannes@...solutions.net, rjw@...k.pl,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pavel@....cz, 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:
> > > > 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?
>
> - process A calls rename() on a fuse fs
> - process B, the fuse server, starts to process the rename request
> - process B is frozen before it can reply
>
> Now process A is unfreezable. We cannot make rename() restartable,
> hence it cannot be interruptible.
Then this is a problem specific to fuse. You should teach fuse to block
suspension while such operations are being performed.
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