On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 15:41, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Tuesday 11 September 2007 23:23:32 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 15:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:27, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > > > Hi.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday 11 September 2007 21:04:22 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 05:54, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Commit 831441862956fffa17b9801db37e6ea1650b0f69 (Freezer: make
> kernel
> > > > > threads
> > > > > > > nonfreezable by default) breaks freezing when attempting to resume
> from an
> > > > > > > initrd, because the init (which is freezeable) spins while waiting
> for
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > thread to run /linuxrc, but doesn't check whether it has been told
> to
> > > > > enter
> > > > > > > the refrigerator.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I use a resume from an initrd on a regular basis and it works
> without the
> > > > > patch
> > > > > > below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we need to investigate what happens in your test case a bit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah. That makes me realise that I see that too - my AMD64 uniprocessor
> laptop
> > > > > didn't need the patch (guess that's why I didn't notice the need and
> ack'd
> > > > > the patch). But my x86 SMP machine... it needs this. I'll see if
> they're
> > > > > running on different processors.
> > > >
> > > > Well, strange. My x86_64 SMP machines don't need the patch too.
> > >
> > > Anyway, yes, init is freezable, but should it be?
> > >
> > > I mean, shouldn't we rather add PF_NOFREEZE to kernel_init()?
> >
> > Argh, no. PF_NOFREEZE is inherited by the children.
> >
> > So, I think that your patch is correct, but there's some suspend2-specific
> > stuff in it. I've rediffed it against 2.6.23-rc6 and moved try_to_freeze()
> > before yield().
>
> Ah yeah. Sorry about that. Is there some reason I've forgotten that makes the
> order of try_to_freeze & yield in a loop like this matter?
Technically it's not that important, but conceptually try_to_freeze() should
happen right after we've been woken up.
> By the way, I had a go at getting fuse processes frozen today. Seems to be
> doable if you take a freeze filesystems prior to processes approach. I've got
> a lot more testing and a bit of cleaning up to do before I'd want to show it
> to anyone, but did successfully do cycles with sshfs, fuseiso and curlftpfs.
Sounds promising. :-)
> Of course I don't seriously expect it to get merged - everyone's too much in
> love with kexec at the moment :)
Well, I guess it'll take some time to get that work reliable and it would be
nice to have a fix before it's ready.
Greetings,
Rafael
-
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]
