On Monday, 23 July 2007 15:08, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > The reason is that we want them to "park" in safe places, ie. where there > > > > are no locks held etc. Thus, these safe places need to be chosen somehow > > > > and since they are not marked throughout the code, we choose the obvious > > > > one. :-) > > > > > > Why shouldn't locks be held? > > > > > > No locks which are required for suspend must be held, sure. But > > > otherwise holding locks doesn't matter at all. > > > > If you can provide a way to tell them apart, this would work. > > Without some marking we can't tell obviously. > > Are there many such locks? We can easily check by adding some > debugging code to the lock primitives, to make them yell if they are > used during suspend. This way we can only obtain information from systems that use hibernation quite often. Alan has recently proposed to introduce "suspend locks" to be acquired during a suspend/hibernation and such that we can leave uninterruptible tasks that don't hold any of them. Unfortunately, I have no link to his original message at hand. Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
