From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935063AbXGUQOM (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:14:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761259AbXGUQOA (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:14:00 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc15.comcast.net ([204.127.192.85]:65426 "EHLO rwcrmhc15.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760292AbXGUQN7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:13:59 -0400 From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard To: Nigel Cunningham Cc: Miklos Szeredi , rjw@sisk.pl, miltonm@bga.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, ying.huang@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, david@lang.hm, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations References: <200707202302.07116.rjw@sisk.pl> <200707212243.35602.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:13:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200707212243.35602.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> (Nigel Cunningham's message of "Sat\, 21 Jul 2007 22\:43\:33 +1000") Message-ID: <87lkd9ohtn.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org It seems that you could still potentially get a failure to freeze if one FUSE process depends on another, and the one that is frozen second just happens to be waiting on the one that is frozen first when it is frozen. I admit that this situation is unlikely, and perhaps acceptable. A larger concern is that it seems that freezing FUSE processes at all _will_ generate deadlocks if a non-synchronous or memory-map-supporting filesystem is loopback mounted from a FUSE filesystem. In that case, if you attempt to sync or free memory once FUSE is frozen, you are sure to get a deadlock. -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard