Hi!
> > > Actually fuse allows SIGKILL, because it's always fatal, and the
> > > syscall may not be restarted.
> >
> > I think you want to stick try_to_freeze() at the same places where you
> > do SIGKILL handling. That should solve the 'syslogd is unfreezeable'
> > problem.
>
> I could, but it would not solve the general problem. Namely, that the
> presence of fuse imposes a certain ordering in which userspace tasks
> have to be frozen. And it is not possible to know this ordering.
We can just wait for all fuse requests to be serviced before
proceeding further with freeze, right?
> And even if the ordering were solved, the freezer would still not work
> if the filesystem is not responding due to external events, such as a
> lost network (this affects NFS, CIFS, whatever just the same as
> fuse).
That's ok, you can't suspend if your hdd is dead, and in the same way
you can't suspend if your NFS server is dead. I agree it is ugly, but
we seem to live ok with that.
We could (and should?) handle that, probably by realizing that NFS is
not a disk and using interruptible sleep, but...
> > Plus, it would be nice to find out where suspend/hibernation is
> > triggering fuse activity. We can then decide where to fix it -- in
> > fuse or in suspend parts. You said sys_sync is not implemented... so
> > where is the problem?
>
> I cannot say without having a sysrq-t of the situation.
Yes please. Can someone affected please produce sysrq-t?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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]
