Hi. On Friday 06 July 2007 17:02:53 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, 6 July 2007 00:00, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > The syncing of filesystems from within the freezer is generally not needed. > > > Change freeze_processes() so that it doesn't execute sys_sync() and make the > > > suspend and hibernation code path sync filesystems independently of the freezer. > > > > Yes, we can do that, but ... why? > > I think that sync and the freezer are different things and shouldn't be mixed in > such a way as they are now. > > > Does it actually fix FUSE? > > It should prevent the freezer from deadlocking. That's not the same thing. It's like saying "My footbrake grabs so I'll use the handbrake all the time. Take the stone out of the brake pad! :) > > Miklos claims sync is nop on FUSE...? > > In that case there shouldn't be any deadlock, but a freezer failure. :-) Isn't this scary? I'm agreeing with Pavel and the two of us seem to be disagreeing with everyone else! To get more serious and practical though, I think the solution is to fuzz the userspace/kernelspace distinction. What we really want to do is freeze things that submit I/O, then sync, then freeze anything that processes I/O and needs to be frozen. In effect, redefine fuse processes as freezeable kernel threads. Regards, Nigel -- See http://www.tuxonice.net for Howtos, FAQs, mailing lists, wiki and bugzilla info.
Attachment:
pgpwggUUNb4Rp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
