Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1] | Date | Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:47:20 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
On Tuesday, 12 of April 2005 01:51, Pavel Machek wrote: ]--snip--[ > > Since the refrigerator() call is in place in the main xfsbufd loop, > > I suspect we're hitting that second case here, where a low memory > > situation is resulting in someone attempting to wakeup xfsbufd -- > > I'm not sure if this is the right way to check if we're in that > > state, but does this patch help? (it would certainly prevent the > > spurious wakeups, but only if the caller has PF_FREEZE set - will > > that be the case here?) > > I should take some sleep now, so I can't test the patch, but I don't > think it will help. If someone has PF_FREEZE set, he should be in > refrigerator.
Or he was in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE while processes were being frozen. :-)
Greets, Rafael
-- - Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here? - That depends a good deal on where you want to get to. -- Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" - 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/
| |