[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707061916.17590.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 19:16:16 +1000
From: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: oliver@...kum.org, rjw@...k.pl, nigel@...pend2.net, pavel@....cz,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, mjg59@...f.ucam.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
Hi.
On Friday 06 July 2007 19:09:43 Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > Moreover, if FUSE implements syncing, then the sync from within the
freezer
> > > > will almost certainly deadlock.
> > >
> > > Rafael, think positively: by the time fuse implements sync(), the
> > > freezer will be long gone ;)
> >
> > Now you are entering really dangerous territory.
> > If you can implement a meaningfull sync method, you must have dirty
> > pages in the page cache. That means you are in the page freeing path
> > of the vm. Then we are in real trouble. Don't even think about it.
>
> VM induced deadlocks are real nasty. I have thought about them a lot
> already. Suspend shouldn't introduce any big surprises.
Suspend isn't introducing the surprises. Fuse is. It creates the potential
deadlocks simply by existing (this isn't suspend or hibernate specific).
Nigel
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists