Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review

Nigel Cunningham wrote:

I'm sorry to say it, but dropping process freezing still seems to me
like the better way though. I prefer it because of the reliability
aspect. With the current code, having frozen processes, I can look at
the state of memory, calculate how much I'll need for this or that and
know that I'll have sufficient memory for the atomic copy and for doing
the I/O  (making assumptions about how much memory drivers will
allocate) before I start to do either. If we stop freezing processes,
that predictability will go away. There'll always be a possibility that
some process will get memory hungry and stop me from being able to get
the image on disk, and I'll have to either abort or give up and try
again and again until I can complete writing the image, the battery runs

out or whatever...

How about blocking brk() and mmap(MAP_ANONYMOUS) in addition to
the filesystem VFS callers?   Or is that starting to get messy again?

Cheers

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Romano Giannetti <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
    • From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/5] lockdep: sanitise CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] add a trivial patch style checker
• Previous by thread: Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
• Next by thread: Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]