Re: Back to the future.
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Sat Apr 28 2007 - 17:26:24 EST
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > The freezer has *caused* those deadlocks (eg by stopping threads that were
> > needed for the suspend writeouts to succeed!), not solved them.
> I can't remember anything like this, but I believe you have a specific test
> case in mind.
Ehh.. Why do you thik we _have_ that PF_NOFREEZE thing in the first place?
Rafael, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Just _look_ at them. It's the IO threads etc that shouldn't be frozen,
exactly *because* they do IO. You claim that kernel threads shouldn't do
IO, but that's the point: if you cannot do IO when snapshotting to disk,
here's a damn big clue for you: how do you think that snapshot is going to
I *guarantee* you that we've had a lot more problems with threads that
should *not* have been frozen than with those hypothetical threads that
you think should have been frozen.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/