[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707211521.34619.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:21:33 +1000
From: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>
To: david@...g.hm
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>,
Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations
Hi.
On Saturday 21 July 2007 08:43:20 david@...g.hm wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> >
> >>>> when doing a suspend-to-ram you get to a point where you just don't use
> >>>> any userspace.
> >>
> >>> What do you mean? How can you prevent user tasks from running? That's
> >>> basically what the freezer does, and the whole point of this approach
> >>> is to eliminate the freezer. Right?
> >>
> >> Presumably no tasks at all would be scheduled.
> >
> > How would you prevent tasks from being scheduled? How would you
> > prevent drivers from deadlocking because in order to put their device
> > in a low-power state they need to acquire a lock which is held by a
> > user task?
>
> you give up on the suspend becouse you have no way of getting the user
> task to give up the lock.
>
> however, kernel locks should not be held by user tasks, user tasks are not
> expected to behave in rational ways, allowing them to compete with kernel
> tasks for locks is a sure way to get a deadlock or indefinate stall.
>
> what locks are accessed this way?
Any userspace process can do a syscall. In the process of the syscall, it can
take kernel locks, and it can schedule (eg, while seeking to take a second
lock).
Regards,
Nigel
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists