Re: Freezer Patches.

Pavel Machek
2005-06-01T23:02:57Z

On Čt 02-06-05 08:45:33, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 00:31 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > (Well, it is just after midnight here :-).
> >
> > > > > Here are the freezer patches. They were prepared against rc3, but I
> > > > > think they still apply fine against rc5. (Ben, these are the same ones I
> > > > > sent you the other day).
> > > >
> > > > 304 seems ugly and completely useless for mainline
> > >
> > > That's because you don't understand what it's doing.
> > >
> > > The new refrigerator implementation works like this:
> > >
> > > Userspace processes that begin a sys_*sync gain the process flag
> > > PF_SYNCTHREAD for the duration of their syscall.
> >
> > swsusp1 should not need any special casing of sync, right? We can
> > simply do sys_sync(), then freeze, or something like that. We could
> > even remove sys_sync() completely; it is not needed for correctness.
>
> It's still quite nice to have ... I put it in my pre-freeze callback in
> fact for both STR and STD :) We really want it for STD but I think it
> doesn't work properly after freeze.

I agree that sync() is nice to have, but I'm not going to slow down
fork/exit for it. And besides, sys_sync() just before suspend works
just fine.

Pavel