[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801022304.19279.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 23:04:18 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: nigel@...el.suspend2.net
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, xfs-masters@....sgi.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: freeze vs freezer
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >>>>>> So how do you handle threads that are blocked on I/O or a lock
> >>>>>> during the system freeze process, then?
> >>>>> We wait until they can continue.
> >>>> So if I have a process blocked on an unavilable NFS mount, I can't
> >>>> suspend?
> >>> That's correct, you can't.
> >>>
> >>> [And I know what you're going to say. ;-)]
> >> Why exactly does suspend/hibernation depend on "TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE"
> >> instead of a zero preempt_count()? Really what we should do is just
> >> iterate over all of the actual physical devices and tell each one
> >> "Block new IO requests preemptably, finish pending DMA, put the
> >> hardware in low-power mode, and prepare for suspend/hibernate". As
> >> long as each driver knows how to do those simple things we can have
> >> an entirely consistent kernel image for both suspend and for
> >> hibernation.
> >
> > "each driver" means this is a lot of work. But yes, that is probably
> > way to go, and patch would be welcome.
>
> Yes, that does work. It's what I've done in my (preliminary) support for
> fuse.
Hmm, can you please elaborate a bit?
Rafael
--
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