From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: question on resume() Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:14:44 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <200701311114.55685.oliver@neukum.org> References: <200701291206.39637.oneukum@suse.de> <200701311004.19477.oneukum@suse.de> <20070131093653.GA19643@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070131093653.GA19643@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Disposition: inline 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: Pavel Machek Cc: pm list , Oliver Neukum , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch, 31. Januar 2007 10:36 schrieb Pavel Machek: > Hi! > = > > > Yes, it will. The process freezer can only return success if there a= re 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. What about URBs in flight which are waited for with TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE? > > 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. What happens to tasks in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE which are frozen? Are they interrupted and frozen? Regards Oliver