Hi. On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 19:23 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tuesday, 20 March 2007 22:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 20 March 2007 21:58, Jiri Slaby wrote: > >> > Rafael J. Wysocki napsal(a): > >> > > Actually, the problem is 100% reproducible on my system too and I doubt > > it's > >> > > caused by the recent freezer patches. > >> > > >> > I don't know what exactly do you mean by recent, but 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 works > >> > for me. > >> > >> Thanks for the confirmation. > >> > >> The patches I was talking about had already been in 2.6.21-rc3-mm2, so the > >> reason of this failure must be different. > > > > Bisection shows that the freezing of processes has been broken by one of the > > patches: > > > > remove-the-likelypid-check-in-copy_process.patch > > Grr. Oleg's review of remove-the-likelypid-check-in-copy-process > showed it to be questionable (and it was just an optimization) > so we can get rid of that one easily. > > Although all it did that was really questionable was add > the idle process to the global process list and bump a process > count when we forked the idle process. Not dramatically dangerous > things. > > > use-task_pgrp-task_session-in-copy_process.patch > > As I recall that patch was pretty trivial, and shouldn't have > anything to do with the freezer. The process freezer doesn't care > about pids does it? Could the freezer code be trying to freeze the idle thread as a result? Regards, Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
