xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer

To: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:16:01 +0200
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@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: <8B00F353-983F-40E7-931B-EA73CCD32F0A@mac.com>
References: <4744FD87.7010301@goop.org> <200711262253.35420.rjw@sisk.pl> <20071127053846.GA28884@srcf.ucam.org> <200711271840.24825.rjw@sisk.pl> <8B00F353-983F-40E7-931B-EA73CCD32F0A@mac.com>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Hi!

(replying to *very* old mail).

>>>> 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.

Patch would be welcome, actually. It turns out blocking new
IO-requests is not completely trivial.
                                                                        Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) 
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


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