| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Corrupt files, Guus Houtzager |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Corrupt files, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1], Barry K. Nathan |
| Next by Thread: | Problem running xfs_repair - it crashes., Paul Neilson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |