On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 06:11:10 PM J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:49:54AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:46:48AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > So, I think this is why implementing freezer as a separate blocking > > > mechanism isn't such a good idea. We're effectively introducing a > > > completely new waiting state to a lot of unsuspecting paths which > > > generates a lot of risks and eventually extra complexity to work > > > around those. I think we really should update freezer to re-use the > > > blocking points we already have - the ones used for signal delivery > > > and ptracing. That way, other code paths don't have to worry about an > > > extra stop state and we can confine most complexities to freezer > > > proper. > > > > Also, consolidating those wait states means that we can solve the > > event-to-response latency problem for all three cases - signal, ptrace > > and freezer, rather than adding separate backing-out strategy for > > freezer. > > Meanwhile, as none of this sounds likely to be done this time > around--are we backing out the new lockdep warnings? I think we should do that. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
