[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1I6huk-0003AH-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:07:38 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: pavel@....cz
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, oliver@...kum.org, 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
> > Actually fuse allows SIGKILL, because it's always fatal, and the
> > syscall may not be restarted.
>
> Okay, and you should handle refrigerator in the same paths where you
> handle SIGKILL. Just add try_to_freeze() there...
It's the fourth time I'm repeating this in this thread:
Yes adding try_to_freeze() there would partially solve the probelem.
But another task can be sleeping on a mutex held by the task waiting
for the reply. And the freezer won't be able to handle that one.
Generally, calling try_to_freeze() with mutexes held is not a good
idea.
Miklos
-
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