From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: Re: freeze_processes questions Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:17:39 +0200 Message-ID: <20050406211739.GA1381@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200504062252.34867.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============89777313461971842==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200504062252.34867.rjw@sisk.pl> 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: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Nigel Cunningham , linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org --===============89777313461971842== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi! > > > I don't think Rafael is suggesting ignoring them. He's suggesting what > > > I'm already doing: > > > - Signal so they enter the freezer if they leave the state; > > > - Don't count them when deciding whether freezing failed; > > > - Handle the case where they don't leave the state until post resume (I > > > let them enter the refrigerator, but have code in there to check whether > > > the freezer is still on). > > > > > > In this way, I handle kseriod and anything else uninterruptible without > > > any problems. > > > > What happens if a process owns a lock needed to suspend a device and it is > > waiting in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE? > > Well, we're in trouble. :-) > > However, if any process that we have frozen owns such a lock, we're in trouble > too. No, we are not. Processes can't own any locks when they are in refrigerator... It is not ok to call refrigerator from any context where you own a lock. OTOH it is okay to enter TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE with locks held. Pavel -- Boycott Kodak -- for their patent abuse against Java. --===============89777313461971842== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --===============89777313461971842==--