Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net>]

Hi.

On Sunday 05 February 2006 05:10, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > 3) trying to treat uninterruptible tasks as non-freezeable should
> > > > better be avoided (I tried to implement this in swsusp last year
> > > > but it caused vigorous opposition to appear, and it was not Pavel
> > > > ;-))
> > >
> > > I'm not suggesting treating them as unfreezeable in the fullest
> > > sense. I still signal them, but don't mind if they don't respond.
> > > This way, if they do leave that state for some reason (timeout?) at
> > > some point, they still get frozen.
> >
> > Yes, that's exactly what I wanted to do in swsusp. ;-)
>
> It seems dangerous to me. Imagine you treated interruptible tasks like
> that...
>
> What prevent task from doing
>
> 	set_state(UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> 	schedule(one hour);
> 	write_to_filesystem();
> 	handle_signal()?
>
> I.e. it may do something dangerous just before being catched by
> refrigerator.

The write_to_filesystem would be caught be bdev freezing if you had it.

Regards,

Nigel

-- 
See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info.
http://www.suspend2.net                IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode

Attachment: pgp5HTRqJV8EO.pgp
Description: PGP signature