xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

To: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:47:20 +0200
Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>, "Barry K. Nathan" <barryn@xxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hare@xxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050411235110.GA2472@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050406142749.6065b836.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <20050411231213.GD702@frodo> <20050411235110.GA2472@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.7.1
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"


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