> > > 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. > > > > Another myth, that has been debunked already. The problem is: how do > > you define fuse processes? There's no theoretical or even practial > > way to do that. > > No theoretical or practical way?! I'll freely admit to being quite ignorant > about fuse, but surely there's some way by which they can be distinguished. How? OK, there are some tasks, that read and/or write /dev/fuse. And there are some that just communicate in some way with the above. These could all be considered "fuse tasks", but those that don't do I/O on /dev/fuse are indistinguishable from non-fuse tasks. And for example sshfs does have such a thread, which is in the reply chain, yet never communicates directly with the fuse kernel module. Miklos _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
