[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1KuyKw-0006UP-EK@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:50:58 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: ncunningham@...a.org.au
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Freezer: Don't count threads waiting for
frozen filesystems.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 00:24 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > > Remember, though, that we're only freezing fuse at the moment, and
> > > > strictly one filesystem at a time. We can thus happily wait for the
> > > > i_mutex taken by some other process to be released.
> > >
> > > Not going to work: you need to wait for all requests to be finished,
> > > but those might depend on some other fuse filesystem which has already
> > > been frozen.
> >
> > Okay. In that case, am I right in thinking that the request waiting on
> > the frozen filesystem will be stuck in request_wait_answer,
>
> Yes.
>
> > and the
> > userspace process that was trying to satisfy the request will be stuck
> > in the FUSE_MIGHT_FREEZE call that was invoked for the frozen
> > filesystem?
Sorry, I misunderstood this. Yes you're right, in the case of one
fuse filesystem relying on another to complete the request the already
frozen one will be stuck in FUSE_MIGHT_FREEZE().
How does that help?
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