From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: question on resume() Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:36:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20070131093653.GA19643@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200701291206.39637.oneukum@suse.de> <200701310940.26040.oliver@neukum.name> <200701310949.04110.rjw@sisk.pl> <200701311004.19477.oneukum@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200701311004.19477.oneukum@suse.de> 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: Oliver Neukum Cc: pm list , Oliver Neukum , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > Yes, it will. The process freezer can only return success if there are= no more > > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks. Otherwise it fails (after a timeout). > = > So, this means, on suspend(): > = > 1. Don't worry about TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE > 2. Do worry about TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE > We have to cease IO and must not call wake_up_interruptible() "cease IO"? No, I believe it is enough not to start new I/O. Userspace is frozen at that point, it can't ask you to do I/O. > Isn't that a race until suspend() is called? I do not think so. > On resume(): > = > 1. Don't worry about TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE > 2. Do not restart IO that may call wake_up_interruptible() > = > When do we restart such IO? We reuse signal handling code to do that for us. It is same situation as when someone signals task doing I/O. Pavel -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html