Alan Stern writes:
> I disagree. The problem isn't the kernel calling userspace; it's
> userspace trying to do I/O at a time when everything is supposed to be
> quiescing. Detecting that and blocking it in drivers is hard and
> error-prone; preventing it by freezing userspace is easy and cheap.
And unreliable, and prone to deadlocks, and invasive - requiring
changes to kernel threads that have nothing to do with drivers or
suspend/resume.
> The reasons why the PPC people dislike the whole idea aren't clear to
> me.
Our experience is that it isn't necessary. It's extra code that in
practice causes deadlocks and added maintenance burden for no
discernable benefit.
> If it were necessary to have some user task running in order to
> carry out the STR then their objection would make sense -- obviously
> that task couldn't do its job if it were frozen. But it isn't
> necessary, or at least it should not be.
The freezer doesn't achieve its stated goal of preventing drivers from
getting I/O requests after suspend, since kernel threads can (and do)
initiate I/O. So then we say that some kernel threads need to be
frozen and others don't, but making that decision is difficult and
error-prone.
Besides, any kernel thread that does I/O is potentially doing that in
order to complete some other I/O request. So we want to freeze it in
order to prevent new I/O requests from being initiated, but we don't
want to freeze it so that existing I/O requests can be completed.
Thus we have a fundamental conflict in the notion of the freezer.
In fact I believe that making a distinction between user and kernel
threads is wrong and likely to lead to problems, since userspace can
be involved in doing I/O (e.g. FUSE or the user-space driver
framework). So the argument of the previous paragraph also applies to
some userspace processes.
> Userspace will be effectively "frozen" while the system as a whole is
> suspended. So what's wrong with freezing it a little early? Despite
> Ben's comments, it seems to me that the freezer doesn't hide problems
> -- it prevents them.
No, it appears to prevent them, but doesn't in fact.
I remain convinced that the right approach is to fix the drivers to do
one of two things; either do something in the suspend call to block
further requests to the device, or use a late-suspend call to put
their device into a low-power state. Of course, correctly-written
frameworks can do a lot to help the chipset drivers here.
> Now people may claim that the freezer implementation itself is buggy.
> I wouldn't dispute it. But the bugs should be fixable; nobody has
> pointed out anything fundamentally wrong with the idea AFAICT.
The fundamental problem is the kernel threads and user processes that
we need running to complete existing I/O requests, but which may
initiate new I/O requests in doing so.
The right way to solve the problem is to do the request blocking in
the drivers.
Paul.
-
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/
[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]
