Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1346 bytes --]

Hi.

On Saturday 21 July 2007 08:43:20 david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> >
> >>>> when doing a suspend-to-ram you get to a point where you just don't use
> >>>> any userspace.
> >>
> >>> What do you mean?  How can you prevent user tasks from running?  That's
> >>> basically what the freezer does, and the whole point of this approach
> >>> is to eliminate the freezer.  Right?
> >>
> >> Presumably no tasks at all would be scheduled.
> >
> > How would you prevent tasks from being scheduled?  How would you
> > prevent drivers from deadlocking because in order to put their device
> > in a low-power state they need to acquire a lock which is held by a
> > user task?
> 
> you give up on the suspend becouse you have no way of getting the user 
> task to give up the lock.
> 
> however, kernel locks should not be held by user tasks, user tasks are not 
> expected to behave in rational ways, allowing them to compete with kernel 
> tasks for locks is a sure way to get a deadlock or indefinate stall.
> 
> what locks are accessed this way?

Any userspace process can do a syscall. In the process of the syscall, it can 
take kernel locks, and it can schedule (eg, while seeking to take a second 
lock).

Regards,

Nigel

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