lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: freeze vs freezer
    Date
    On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
    > Hi.
    >
    > Pavel Machek wrote:
    > > Hi!
    > >
    > >>>>>> So how do you handle threads that are blocked on I/O or a lock
    > >>>>>> during the system freeze process, then?
    > >>>>> We wait until they can continue.
    > >>>> So if I have a process blocked on an unavilable NFS mount, I can't
    > >>>> suspend?
    > >>> That's correct, you can't.
    > >>>
    > >>> [And I know what you're going to say. ;-)]
    > >> Why exactly does suspend/hibernation depend on "TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE"
    > >> instead of a zero preempt_count()? Really what we should do is just
    > >> iterate over all of the actual physical devices and tell each one
    > >> "Block new IO requests preemptably, finish pending DMA, put the
    > >> hardware in low-power mode, and prepare for suspend/hibernate". As
    > >> long as each driver knows how to do those simple things we can have
    > >> an entirely consistent kernel image for both suspend and for
    > >> hibernation.
    > >
    > > "each driver" means this is a lot of work. But yes, that is probably
    > > way to go, and patch would be welcome.
    >
    > Yes, that does work. It's what I've done in my (preliminary) support for
    > fuse.

    Hmm, can you please elaborate a bit?

    Rafael


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-02 23:05    [W:0.024 / U:31.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site