On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:37:33AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > Um. I don't think I can audit all the calls in the kernel that submit > > block requests and determine which ones need to be allowed while a > > system sleep is in progress. > > ??? we need to do that anyway and the ones which should go through are > much smaller than the ones which shouldn't go through. Agreed. I'm just saying that it's too big a job for me to handle by myself. And all the marking has to be done before you plug the unmarked requests; otherwise you could break hibernation. > > Well, there are some dedicated threads that exist for no other purpose > > than to do I/O to devices and to handle hotplug/unplug events. I don't > > see any reason not allow such threads to be freezable. It's a quick, > > convenient method for getting them out of the way. > > Well, it's convenient to use incorrectly. If you look at most of > freezable kthreads, they're sadly broken. I mean, a lot of kthread > users don't even get kthread_should_stop() right. With freezable() > thrown into the mix, it seems hopeless. With wq, it's better as > freezing is handled by wq proper. Even then, I don't know. It just > seems to lead people to think "ooh, I marked it freezable so I don't > have to think about synchronization across PM events. Freezer will > magically solve this for me!". :( Certainly there are issues which need to be considered carefully. That doesn't mean it should never be used. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
