[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008041650470.6545@asgard.lang.hm>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 16:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: david@...g.hm
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pavel@....cz, florian@...kler.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
swetland@...gle.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, August 05, 2010, david@...g.hm wrote:
>>
>> My proposal would never freeze a subset of processes.
>>
>> what my proposal:
>>
>> only consider the activity of a subset of processes when deciding if we
>> should suspend or not. If the decision is to suspend, freeze everything.
>
> That alone doesn't allow you to handle the race Matthew was referring to
> (ie. wakeup event happening right after you've decided to suspend).
>
> A mechanism of making a decision alone is not sufficient, you also need a
> mechanism to avoid races between wakeup events and suspend process.
>
I thought you just posted that there was a new feature that would be able
to abort the suspend and so that race was closed.
David Lang
--
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