> > Pro-freezers say:
> >
> > - don't remove the freezer, otherwise we'll have to deal with
> > numerous problems in drivers
>
> And these problems will generally be difficult to reproduce reliably
> and debug.
I see exactly the opposite.
With the freezer I can have very rarely occuring failures, due to
freeze ordering effects.
And without the freezer I have a 100% reproducable problem, that is
not hard to fix according to Alan Stern. OK, I don't know what the
next problem would be, but the powermac experience shows, that it's
not nearly as bad as you and Oliver try to make it out.
> > Can this be fixed?
> >
> > It seems to be a fundamental problem with the freezer: while it does
> > make sure that user processes are not calling into drivers during
> > suspend, it also disallows perfectly harmless non-driver calls as
> > well.
>
> The problem is that when the freezer was designed (I didn't do that, BTW),
> there was no FUSE and similar things, so it's not prepared to cope with
> such interdependencies between user space tasks.
>
> We had an analogous problem with vfork() and it was solved by using the
> PF_FREEZER_SKIP flag. Perhaps we can do similar thing with FUSE.
It cannot be just worked around in fuse, as a task might be sleeping
on a number of VFS mutexes as well (i_mutex, s_vfs_rename_mutex, etc).
It would be a gigantic hack, possible at all.
Miklos
-
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]
