lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
    Date
    Hi.

    On Thursday 05 July 2007 22:25:06 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > On Thursday, 5 July 2007 01:45, Pavel Machek wrote:
    > > On Tue 2007-07-03 21:32:20, Oliver Neukum wrote:
    > > > Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 schrieb Miklos Szeredi:
    > > > > > And a further question. The freezer is not atomic. What do you do
    > > > > > if a task not yet frozen calls sys_sync(), but fuse is already
    frozen?
    > > > >
    > > > > What do you do if a task not yet frozen writes to a pipe, on the other
    > > > > end of which is a task already frozen?
    > >
    > > There's some difference between uninterruptible and interruptible
    > > sleep I'd say.
    > >
    > > > > It doesn't matter. The only thing that should matter during suspend
    > > > > (not hibernate) is saving the state of devices to ram, and putting the
    > > > > devices to sleep.
    > > >
    > > > Well, but you did remove sys_sync() from the freezer, which is
    > > > and must be called in the hibernate path.
    > >
    > > Not "must". In fact, hibernation should be safe without sys_sync(). It
    > > is just user un-friendly.
    >
    > In fact, I'd like to remove the sys_sync() from the freezer entirely,
    because
    > it just doesn't belong in there.
    >
    > The only advantege of having sys_sync() in freeze_processes() is that we
    > have a chance to write out everything when applications cannot produce more
    > data to write, but there are filesystems which don't do that anyway (eg.
    XFS),
    > so generally there's no reason to bother.

    Shouldn't XFS - and fuse - be considered to be broken? Sync should sync data
    and if XFS isn't doing that, it's wrong.

    In the case of fuse, we should have a mechanism by which fuse processes can be
    made to sync if they do have any pending I/O, and by which they can be frozen
    later than other userspace processes.

    I'd like to see the sync stay, because it improves reliability and data
    integrity in the fail-to-resume case. Calling scripts would probably invoke
    sync themselves if they don't already, but that's racy. As it is at the
    moment, we know userspace is stopped, so syncing isn't racy.

    Regards,

    Nigel
    --
    See http://www.tuxonice.net for Howtos, FAQs, mailing
    lists, wiki and bugzilla info.
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-07-05 14:41    [W:0.032 / U:53.776 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site