On ?t 07-04-05 23:03:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi, > > On Thursday, 7 of April 2005 22:00, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > ]--snip--[ > > > > If that means waiting more than 10 seconds or so, you should just give up. > > > > Return an error and put a message in the log saying something like "Can't > > > > suspend because process XXX is busy". > > > > > > OK, that's what we do now. Except that IMO we should clear the PF_FREEZE flag > > > for this process and do recalc_sigpending() for it after we give up, because > > > otherwise it will enter the refrigerator sooner or later and it will stay there. > > > Alternatively, we can disable the "freezing loop" in refrigerator() as soon as > > > thaw_processes() is started. Also, we can avoid setting PF_FREEZE for > > > processes in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, but count them as "freezable". Etc. > > > > Yes, all the necessary cleanup steps should be taken. > > Pavel, which approach do you like most? Clearing PF_FREEZE when we fail to stop some process sounds okay to me. It would be nice if the patch was actually tested ;-). I do not think you can deal with TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE in some reasonable way... If you do something with them be sure to make it separate patch :-). Pavel -- Boycott Kodak -- for their patent abuse against Java.
