Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:17:15 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Remove pmdisk from kernel |
| |
On Út 16-03-04 12:27:36, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 13:56, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > Most of those changes are hooks to make the freezer for more reliable. > > > That part of the functionality could be isolated from the bulk of > > > suspend2. Would that make you happy? > > > > Yes, that would be very good. It would make it easy to see actual > > changes.. > > > > [I still do not understand why those hooks are neccessary... kill > > -SIGSTOP works, right?] > > Not always. Take for example the case where you have an NFS mount and > happen to be doing an ls when the suspend cycle is started. If you > signal the NFSd threads before the ls thread, the NFS threads will > refrigerate okay, but the ls thread will fail to stop because it's > waiting for data from the nfsd threads.
Hmm, you are right that with dead nfs server, kill -SIGSTOP will fail on ls, and similary current refrigerator will fail. I think we can live with that.
I agree that two-stage suspend is probably neccessary (userland first, kernel than); but that should be possible without that big changes, right?
> The best way to test the reliability of the current freezer > implementation is to grab Michael's test patches. They can load the > system down with NFS access, kernel compiles, benchmarks and so on. > You'll quickly see the freezer fail. My implementation handles those > loads flawlessly, and where problems are found, they're easily fixed.
Your solution is more reliable, thats right. Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] - 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/
| |