lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: freeze vs freezer
Date
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> (replying to *very* old mail).
>
>>
>> >>>> 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.
>>
>> Patch would be welcome, actually. It turns out blocking new
>> IO-requests is not completely trivial.

Quite. But I'm not sure I see what this is all about yet. From the IDE
and SCSI subsystems I remember that they block all I/O from higher levels
once the suspend callbacks have been executed. I haven't made an effort
to understand the freezer (or indeed anything related to hibernation)
yet since I don't even use hibernation myself (only s2ram). Do you have
any suggestion where to start reading up on things so I can get an idea
what the issues are and what you would like IDE / SCSI / ... to do?

>
> Is this the same thing the per-device IO-queue-freeze patches for
>HDAPS also
> need to do? If so, you may want to talk to Elias Oltmanns
> <eo@nebensachen.de> about it. Added to CC.

Thanks for the heads up Henrique. Even though these issues seem to be
related up to a certain degree, there probably are some important
differences. When suspending a system, the emphasis is on leaving the
system in a consistent state (think of journalled file systems), whereas
disk shock protection is mainly concerned with stopping I/O as soon as
possible. As yet, I cannot possibly say to what extend these two
concepts can be reconciled in the sense of sharing some common code.

Regards,

Elias


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-24 10:11    [W:1.815 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site