Hi. On Sunday 05 February 2006 03:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi, > > On Saturday 04 February 2006 12:41, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > On Saturday 04 February 2006 21:38, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > My personal view is that: > > > > > 1) turning the freezing of kernel threads upside-down is not > > > > > necessary and would cause problems in the long run, > > > > > > > > Upside down? > > > > > > I mean now they should freeze voluntarily and your patches change > > > that so they would have to be created as non-freezeable if need be, > > > AFAICT. > > > > Ah. Now I'm on the same page. Lost the context. > > > > > > > 2) the todo lists are not necessary and add a lot of complexity, > > > > > > > > Sorry. Forgot about this. I liked it for solving the SMP problem, > > > > but IIRC, we're downing other cpus before this now, so that issue > > > > has gone away. I should check whether I'm right there. > > > > > > > > > 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. ;-) > > > > Oh. What's Pavel's solution? Fail freezing if uninterruptible threads > > don't freeze? > > Yes. > > AFAICT it's to avoid situations in which we would freeze having a > process in the D state that holds a semaphore or a mutex neded for > suspending or resuming devices (or later on for saving the image etc.). > > [I didn't answer this question previously, sorry.] S'okay. This thread is an ocotpus :) Are there real life examples of this? I can't think of a single time that I've heard of something like this happening. I do see rare problems with storage drivers not having driver model support right, and thereby causing hangs, but that's brokenness in a completely different way. In short, I'm wondering if (apart from the forking issue), this is a straw man. Regards, Nigel > Greetings, > Rafael > > _______________________________________________ > Suspend2-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.suspend2.net/mailman/listinfo/suspend2-devel -- See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode
Attachment:
pgpMLsgkmF4XA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- References:
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Prev by Date: Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Next by Date: Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Previous by thread: Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Next by thread: Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Index(es):