Hi! > > > I just think that the freezer approach, as it is, is backward. We can't > > > have a 3rd party try to discriminate what to freeze and what not, it > > > will always get something wrong, and in some cases with the wrong timing > > > or ordering. > > > > Nice discussion, except for one thing: the freezer doesn't decide what to > > freeze. For example, even right now kernel threads decide if they want to be > > frozen. > > Somewhat... userspace doesn't and workqueues are a gray area. But userspace must not be neccessary for kernel functioning, so that's quite okay. And we do need to solve the workqueues. > Also, I've been thinking this "icebox" idea a bit more and it seems in > fact a bit racy in some areas, at least for use by things like drivers, > unless we end up doing something aking to an RCU on suspend, waiting for > all tasks to reach userland once, but that has the same annoyances as > the current freezer. > > Thus I'm tempted to go back to saying that driver can handle things > locally :-) :-). Or perhaps freezer is not _that_ evil after all? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
