Re: Back to the future.

[Linus Torvalds]

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 
get written?

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.

			Linus
-
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/