[Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 06:24:09AM -0800, Brian Swetland wrote: > > > I think the "what happens when a process crashes and its suspend > > inhibits are released" issue still needs some thought -- if say a > > background/service process crashes while holding a lock we want to > > have the process be able to be restarted by init or whatnot without > > having to wait for some other activity. This is a real example we > > ran into in the past -- telephony process crashes and the device > > doesn't get back on the network until the user presses a key, an > > alarm fires, etc. > > The easiest way to handle this would seem to be a multiplexing daemon > that implements whatever policy a specific use case has. In your case > this would do its own reference counting and then implement timeouts for > specific applications, perhaps with some kind of acl so arbitrary apps > can't take a lock and then fall down a well. If you've got a > sufficiently advanced init then you'd be able to flag an application as > being in restart state and then have the daemon hold the lock until the > application chooses to reacquire it or not, which seems more flexible > than any purely kernel-based implementation. It'd be nice to not have to indirect all userspace suspend inhibits. If we had the device interface to userspace actually have INHIBIT and STOP_INHIBIT ops, we could notice if the fd is closed without actually returning the state to STOP_INHIBIT cleanly. Add a mechanism for waiting until somebody exits unexpectedly that init or your monitor process could use, you avoid the indirection and have a mechanism for handing over to whatever is responsible for restarting something that's in an unhappy state. Too convoluted? Brian _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
