[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1I8bjM-0000NS-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:55:44 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: nigel@...pend2.net
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, rjw@...k.pl, a1426z@...ab.com, jeremy@...p.org,
jbms@....edu, pavel@....cz, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Hibernation Redesign
> The point to freezing tasks isn't just to stop drivers doing work. It's also
> to stop userspace doing work and thereby increase reliability. The more work
> that is occuring while we're trying to write a hibernation image, the less
> reliable the hibernation will be (competing for memory and so on) and the
> slower it will be (competing for cycles etc).
We are talking about a kexec based hibernate. All of the above just
doesn't apply in that case.
I'm not contending, that the current hibernation (epecially Pavel's
new userspace based one) needs a frozen userland.
> > > Why? How can such ordering be determined programmatically?
> >
> > It can't. If you are interested, please read through that thread. If
> > something's still not clear, let's discuss it further.
>
> You can say it "imposes certain ordering" but you can say what that ordering
> is?! How about mount order? That must be a good start.
The order in which tasks are relying on each other to be able to
finish a syscall.
Mount order says _nothing_ about tasks.
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