Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270244AbTGRRoN (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:44:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270262AbTGRRoN (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:44:13 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:63369 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270244AbTGRRoN (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:44:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:02:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Mochel X-X-Sender: mochel@cherise To: Pavel Machek cc: Andrew Morton , Peter Osterlund , Subject: Re: Software suspend testing in 2.6.0-test1 In-Reply-To: <20030718175045.GA195@elf.ucw.cz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 691 Lines: 18 > I wanted to avoid that: we do want user threads refrigerated at that > point so that we know noone is allocating memory as we are trying to > do memory shrink. I'd like to avoid having refrigerator run in two > phases.... But we should be the only process running, and we can guarantee that by not sleeping and doing preempt_disable() when we begin. Especially if we start the refrigeration sequence after we shrink memory. Right? -pat - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/