From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: Re: freeze_processes questions Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:33:23 +0200 Message-ID: <200504052033.23978.rjw@sisk.pl> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============84734305932789256==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Linux-pm mailing list , Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org --===============84734305932789256== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday, 5 of April 2005 20:17, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > 1) We can treat uninterruptible tasks as non-freezable (in analogy to stopped > > tasks) - if all of the other tasks are frozen, nothing can wake up an uninterruptible > > task, so this seems to be a safe approach. > > Not true at all. An uninterruptible task can be woken up by an interrupt > handler. Right. So it seems we'll have to force uninterruptible tasks to go to the refrigerator(). 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" --===============84734305932789256== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --===============84734305932789256==--