| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer, Rafael J. Wysocki |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer, Kyle Moffett |
| Previous by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer, Rafael J. Wysocki |
| Next by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer, Kyle Moffett |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |