Re: Re: freeze_processes questions

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1544 bytes --]

Hi,

On Wednesday, 6 of April 2005 23:17, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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.

I didn't mean a lock in general, but a lock that is needed to suspend a device.
If a process holding that lock is frozen, the _suspend() routine for the device
won't complete, because it won't be able to get the lock.  IOW it will go to
sleep and we are single-threaded at that time ...  Or am I missing anything?

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"

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]