On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
> > Threads that do no I/O at all don't care about suspend/resume and
> > don't need to be frozen in any case. Threads that issue I/O requests
> > in order to service incoming I/O requests can't be frozen because of
> > the possibility of deadlock. Which leaves threads that do I/O just
> > for the fun of it. :)
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
> Those two threads will try to resume USB devices in response to wakeup
> requests. Such requests arrive during a suspend or resume transition
> more often than one would expect.
>
> If the resume attempt occurs before the host controller has been
> suspended, it will abort the system suspend. If it occurs after the
> host controller is suspended (and before the controller resumes) it
> will fail and try to unregister the USB device -- something else we
> don't like happening while the sytem is only partially up (not to
> mention the annoyance caused by the unregistration of a perfectly
> functional device).
Actually the situation may not be quite this bad any more. It's been a
while since I tried suspending a system without freezing khubd and
ksuspend_usbd. But Miklos's mail shows that problems can and will
occur.
Alan Stern
-
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]
