[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1I6iMD-0003Gl-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:36:01 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: nigel@...pend2.net
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, nigel@...pend2.net, rjw@...k.pl, pavel@....cz,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mjg59@...f.ucam.org,
oliver@...kum.org, paulus@...ba.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm] PM: Do not sync filesystems from within the freezer
> > > To get more serious and practical though, I think the solution is to
> > > fuzz the userspace/kernelspace distinction. What we really want to
> > > do is freeze things that submit I/O, then sync, then freeze anything
> > > that processes I/O and needs to be frozen. In effect, redefine fuse
> > > processes as freezeable kernel threads.
> >
> > Another myth, that has been debunked already. The problem is: how do
> > you define fuse processes? There's no theoretical or even practial
> > way to do that.
>
> No theoretical or practical way?! I'll freely admit to being quite ignorant
> about fuse, but surely there's some way by which they can be distinguished.
How? OK, there are some tasks, that read and/or write /dev/fuse. And
there are some that just communicate in some way with the above.
These could all be considered "fuse tasks", but those that don't do
I/O on /dev/fuse are indistinguishable from non-fuse tasks.
And for example sshfs does have such a thread, which is in the reply
chain, yet never communicates directly with the fuse kernel module.
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