[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: problem 1 (was Re: removing refrigerator does not help with s2ram vs. fuse deadlocks (was Re: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway))
    On Saturday, 7 July 2007 14:08, Pavel Machek wrote:
    > Hi!
    > > > Now, if kernel needs FUSE services for some reason (that's the problem
    > > > we hit in s2ram case, right?), we have a deadlock.
    > > >
    > > > So main problem still seems to be "kernel should not depend on
    > > > userland services during suspend", refrigerator or not.
    > >
    > > And also "Userland should not depend on userland services", which is
    > > rather more of a problem.
    > No, that's not a problem. Or rather, that's different problem, called
    > "problem 2" (fuse causes freezer to fail to stop processes).
    > But we still have "problem 1" here: after devices are suspended,
    > kernel tries to use fuse's services. That is not going to work, one
    > way or another, because devices are suspended and userland can't work
    > reliably.
    > (Aha, it _may_ be it is kernel tries to use fuse's services after
    > freezing userland but before freezing devices. I don't think it is).
    > To solve "problem 1", we need to know which part of kernel asks for
    > fuse services. sysrq-t trace is likely to tell us. Can someone repeat
    > the "problem 1" scenario (freezer succeeds but then it deadlocks), and
    > produce sysrq-t trace? That way we can solve "problem 1".

    Well, such a trace would be helpful in any case.


    "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-07-07 22:51    [W:0.024 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site