On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:33:40PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > 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: > > > > 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? The sys_sync is unnecessary in the first case. There shouldn't be anything in the suspend path that's going to require userspace access to a device after that device has been suspended. > 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. There's nothing wrong with it as such, it's just that our implementation appears to suck in a myriad of small ways that keep cropping up and biting people. Even without the sys_sync(), freezing processes results in the suspend failing because syslog is stuck in D state and won't go into the refrigerator. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
