xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer

To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:49:18 -0800
Cc: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@xxxxxxx>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <200711280002.00755.rjw@sisk.pl>
References: <4744FD87.7010301@goop.org> <200711271840.24825.rjw@sisk.pl> <8B00F353-983F-40E7-931B-EA73CCD32F0A@mac.com> <200711280002.00755.rjw@sisk.pl>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115)
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Well, this is more-or-less how we all imagine that should be done eventually.
>
> The main problem is how to implement it without causing too much breakage.
> Also, there are some dirty details that need to be taken into consideration.
>   

For Xen suspend/resume, I'd like to use the freezer to get all threads
into a known consistent state (where, specifically, they don't have any
outstanding pagetable updates pending).  In other words, the freezer as
it currently stands is what I want, modulo some of these issues where it
gets caught up unexpectedly.  If threads end up getting frozen anywhere
preempt isn't explicitly disabled, it wouldn't work for me.

    J


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