> > Pro-freezers say: > > > > - don't remove the freezer, otherwise we'll have to deal with > > numerous problems in drivers > > And these problems will generally be difficult to reproduce reliably > and debug. I see exactly the opposite. With the freezer I can have very rarely occuring failures, due to freeze ordering effects. And without the freezer I have a 100% reproducable problem, that is not hard to fix according to Alan Stern. OK, I don't know what the next problem would be, but the powermac experience shows, that it's not nearly as bad as you and Oliver try to make it out. > > Can this be fixed? > > > > It seems to be a fundamental problem with the freezer: while it does > > make sure that user processes are not calling into drivers during > > suspend, it also disallows perfectly harmless non-driver calls as > > well. > > The problem is that when the freezer was designed (I didn't do that, BTW), > there was no FUSE and similar things, so it's not prepared to cope with > such interdependencies between user space tasks. > > We had an analogous problem with vfork() and it was solved by using the > PF_FREEZER_SKIP flag. Perhaps we can do similar thing with FUSE. It cannot be just worked around in fuse, as a task might be sleeping on a number of VFS mutexes as well (i_mutex, s_vfs_rename_mutex, etc). It would be a gigantic hack, possible at all. Miklos _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
