[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer

To: nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 23:04:18 +0100
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>, Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@xxxxxxx>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <477C0258.8080609@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4744FD87.7010301@xxxxxxxx> <20080102160234.GA17070@xxxxxx> <477C0258.8080609@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012)
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?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>