[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707082115.27363.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:15:26 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Matthew Garrett <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
On Sunday, 8 July 2007 07:14, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
[--snip--]
>
> I just think that the freezer approach, as it is, is backward. We can't
> have a 3rd party try to discriminate what to freeze and what not, it
> will always get something wrong, and in some cases with the wrong timing
> or ordering.
Nice discussion, except for one thing: the freezer doesn't decide what to
freeze. For example, even right now kernel threads decide if they want to be
frozen.
Greetings,
Rafael
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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