Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Tue Aug 03 2010 - 10:11:42 EST
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 09:56:10PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 03:47:08PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >> Another one: freezing whole cgroups..... we have that today. it
> >> actually works quite well.... of course the hard part is the decision
> >> what to put in which cgroup, and at what frequency and duration you let
> >> cgroups run.
> > Indeed, the Android guys seemed to be quite excited by cgroup freezing
> > until they thought about the application-classification problem.
> > Seems like it should be easy for some types of applications, but I do
> > admit that apps can have non-trivial and non-obvious dependencies.
> The dependencies is what made this solution uninteresting to us. For
> instance, we currently use cgroup scheduling to reduce the impact of
> some background tasks, but we occasionally saw a watchdog restart of
> the system process were critical services were waiting on a kernel
> mutex owned by a background task for more than 20 seconds. If we froze
> a cgroup instead, we would not hit this particular problem since tasks
> cannot be frozen while executing kernel code the same way they can be
> preempted, but nothing prevents a task from being frozen while holding
> a user-space resource.
Excellent point -- I had completely missed this failure mode!!!
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/