[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110827103534.GK2632@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 12:35:34 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, menage@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] freezer: make exiting tasks properly unfreezable
Hello, Rafael.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:09:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > One thing I'm curious about is how many drivers do we have left which
> > depend on freezer as opposed to implementing proper quiescing
> > mechanism using PM hooks? Are there still a lot left?
>
> There is a number of drivers that use freezable workqueues and that's
> prefectly valid in my view. Beyond that, may suspend/resume routines
> depend on the freezer to some extent, because they assume that user
> space won't talk to the driver while they are being run.
>
> Do you mean any other kind of dependence?
I still feel a bit unsure about depending on freezer as escaping them
unintentionally seems a bit too easy (e.g. schedule_work() for delayed
processing) and as drivers need to implement responses to PM events
anyway, I think implementing the support explicitly has lesser chance
of causing obscure bugs which are difficult to reproduce. Anyways,
something to discuss some other day, I guess.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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