Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/8] Enhance process freezer interface for usage beyond software suspend | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Date | Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:20:55 +1000 |
| |
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 16:34 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, 2 April 2007 22:51, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > +/* Per process freezer specific flags */ > > > > > +#define PF_FE_SUSPEND 0x00008000 /* This thread should not be frozen > > > > > + * for suspend > > > > > + */ > > > > > + > > > > > +#define PF_FE_KPROBES 0x00000010 /* This thread should not be frozen > > > > > + * for Kprobes > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > Just put the comment before the define for long comments? > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > (Actually it would be nice to say > > > > /* This thread should not be frozen for suspend, becuase it is needed > > for getting image saved to disk */ > > > > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM > > > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_PM) || defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || \ > > > > > + defined(CONFIG_KPROBES) > > > > > > > > Should we create CONFIG_FREEZER? > > > > > > Why do you think so? I think the freezer should be compiled automatically > > > if any of the above is set, which is what this directive really means. > > > > Kconfig can do that. ("select statement"). If we have one such ifdef, > > it is okay, but if it would be more of them. > > > > > > Hmmm, I do not really like softlockup watchdog running during suspend. > > > > Can we make this freezeable and make watchdog shut itself off while > > > > suspending? > > > > > > Generally, I agree, but this patch only replaces the existing instances > > > of PF_NOFREEZE with the new mechanism. The changes you're talking about > > > require a separate patch series (or at least one separate patch), I think, and > > > they need not be so simple to make. > > > > Agreed about separate patch series. > > > > > > > - current->flags |= PF_NOFREEZE; > > > > > + freezer_exempt(FE_ALL); > > > > > pid = kernel_thread(do_linuxrc, "/linuxrc", SIGCHLD); > > > > > if (pid > 0) { > > > > > while (pid != sys_wait4(-1, NULL, 0, NULL)) > > > > > > > > Does this mean we have userland /linuxrc running with PF_NOFREEZE? > > > > That would be very bad... > > > > > > No, actually it is _required_ for the userland resume to work. Well, perhaps > > > I should place a comment in there so that I don't have to explain this again > > > and again. :-) > > > > Can you put big bold comment there? > > > > Why is it needed? Freezer never freezes _current_ task. > > No, it doesn't, but this task spawns linuxrc and then calls sys_wait4() in a > loop. > > Well, actually, I'll try to plant try_to_freeze() in this loop and see if that > works. If it doesn't, I'll add a comment.
It works. I've had:
while (pid != sys_wait4(-1, NULL, 0, NULL)) { yield(); try_to_freeze(); }
there for ages for Suspend2.
Regards,
Nigel
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |