Re: Hibernation Redesign

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1858 bytes --]

Hi.

On Wednesday 11 July 2007 21:11:34 Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > Anyway, to implement the kexec approach we must separate the
> > hibernation from the suspend at the drivers level, which I'm still
> > going to do, but I need to take part in endless discussions
> 
> Discussions are good.  We understand the problem better.  Now I still
> think we don't understand every aspect completely, so continuing the
> discussion makes sense.
> 
> > regarding the freezer, how it is bad and how we should drop it,
> > because it breaks things (which NB is not true, because it doesn't).
> 
> This thread started out from a bug, that seemed to be caused by the
> freezer (we still don't exactly know what it was caused by), and the
> discussion uncovered various problems _with_ the freezer, that up to
> now no other _proper_ solutions have been propsed than to remove the
> freezer.

No other _proper_ solutions have been proposed. Everyone who suggests removing 
the freezer also suggests implementing it all over again. It might be sending 
SIGSTOP to everything. It might be shifting the desk chairs around and 
creating a completely new kernel context, but they always have the same 
goal - stopping the existing activity, and they all come with their own 
issues (even if they're not obvious yet because the alternatives are 
currently vapourware to one extent or another).

IMHO, the real solution is to go back to the original issue and fix it 
properly. Make fuse filesystems play nicely with the existing freezer. I've 
just gone back and looked at the point where you started talking 
about "malicious filesystems". You talk about fuse imposing certain ordering 
in the userspace tasks being frozen. Please, say more. What ordering issues? 
Why? How can such ordering be determined programmatically?
 
Regards,

Nigel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]