[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1225371842.8576.6.camel@nigel-laptop>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:04:02 +1100
From: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: rjw@...k.pl, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Freezer: Don't count threads waiting for frozen
filesystems.
Hi.
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 00:48 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 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.
At the moment, yes. But it's not impossible for us to modify the patch
to handle that as well.
Regards,
Nigel
--
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