| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:07:26 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> To: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Freezer: Don't count threads waiting for frozen filesystems. On Wednesday, 29 of October 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:11 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > The current design of the freezer is rather simplistic and I'm not really sure > > it's the best one possible. Perhaps we can redesign the freezer to work > > differently and handle the cases like fuse. > > Why redo what I've already done? In the full patch, you have the basis > of what you're talking about. I haven't seen a failure to freeze fuse or > anything else in a year of use. Still, Miklos noticed some problems with it. I'm not talking about doing things on top of the current signal-based freezing mechanism, but rather about moving the freezer a bit closer towards the scheduler. Maybe this is the way to go. I don't know. In any case, the freezing of user space seems to be much simpler than modifying all drivers to add suspend synchronization. Thanks, 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