On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:57:17PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:03:33PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > Quite apart from the sync() matter, _any_ synchronous call to a FUSE > > > > filesystem during STR will cause trouble. Even if the user task > > > > implementing the filesystem isn't frozen, when it tries to carry out > > > > some I/O to a suspended device it will either: > > > > > > > > block until the system wakes up, or > > > > > > For the suspend to RAM case, that sounds absolutely fine. > > > > It's not so good when your suspend process has to wait for the call to > > complete! > > Why would it have to? Sorry, I suspect I'm missing something obvious > here. Well, the sys_sync() that caused your original problem did exactly that. It's the reason you get deadlocks, right? I agree that in general the suspend process should not have to wait for a userspace callback to complete. Indeed, there's no particular reason that anything running during STR should have to wait for something in userspace to complete. Given that fact, I don't see anything wrong with freezing userspace when doing STR. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
