Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 09:56:10PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 03:47:08PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> ...
> >> Another one: freezing whole cgroups..... we have that today. it
> >> actually works quite well.... of course the hard part is the decision
> >> what to put in which cgroup, and at what frequency and duration you let
> >> cgroups run.
> >
> > Indeed, the Android guys seemed to be quite excited by cgroup freezing
> > until they thought about the application-classification problem.
> > Seems like it should be easy for some types of applications, but I do
> > admit that apps can have non-trivial and non-obvious dependencies.
> 
> The dependencies is what made this solution uninteresting to us. For
> instance, we currently use cgroup scheduling to reduce the impact of
> some background tasks, but we occasionally saw a watchdog restart of
> the system process were critical services were waiting on a kernel
> mutex owned by a background task for more than 20 seconds. If we froze
> a cgroup instead, we would not hit this particular problem since tasks
> cannot be frozen while executing kernel code the same way they can be
> preempted, but nothing prevents a task from being frozen while holding
> a user-space resource.

Excellent point -- I had completely missed this failure mode!!!

							Thanx, Paul