linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] Freezer: Don't count threads waiting for frozen filesystems.

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <E1KvKm8-0000cP-6f@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:48:32 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	ncunningham@...a.org.au
CC:	rjw@...k.pl, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	miklos@...redi.hu
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Freezer: Don't count threads waiting for frozen
	filesystems.

On Thu, 30 Oct 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.

Well yeah, your patch handles the straightforward cases.  But it
doesn't help with the more tricky cases, where one fuse filesystem is
using another, and as those may become more widespread, this approach
will fail.

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/