Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 schrieb Oliver Neukum: > Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 schrieb Miklos Szeredi: > > > > Yes, fuse could handle being frozen there. However that would only > > > > solve part of the problem: an operation waiting for a reply could be > > > > holding a VFS mutex and some other task may be blocked on that mutex. > > > > > > > > How would you solve freezing those tasks? > > > > > > OK, you made me reach for literatur on theoretical computer science. > > > > > > IMHO the range of actions a fuse server is inherently limited. > > > You must never ever block on a lock one of your clients is holding. In > > > this case the limitation is not influenced by the freezer. > > > > Obviously. But I wasn't about the server trying to acquire a lock > > held by a client. I was talking about a client trying to acquire a > > lock held by _another_ client. > > > > If this coincides with the server (or some other task which the server > > is depending on) being frozen before the clients, the freezer has a > > problem. > > True, but that case can only happen if servers are frozen before clients. > You don't need a full dependency graph. A simple set sequence of two > classes of tasks will do. Any replying to myself. A deadlock here is not fatal. You can and will timeout in the freezer and can try again. REegards Oliver _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
