Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756348AbYFWOA1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:00:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753288AbYFWOAT (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:00:19 -0400 Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:38299 "EHLO out3.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753147AbYFWOAS (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:00:18 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: 50iUIgyacrohsgpXmVA8S0uelGFGdZzpjLQx+uR6R1yN 1214229616 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:00:12 -0300 From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh To: Pavel Machek Cc: Kyle Moffett , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Matthew Garrett , David Chinner , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Elias Oltmanns Subject: Re: freeze vs freezer Message-ID: <20080623140012.GA11899@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <4744FD87.7010301@goop.org> <200711262253.35420.rjw@sisk.pl> <20071127053846.GA28884@srcf.ucam.org> <200711271840.24825.rjw@sisk.pl> <8B00F353-983F-40E7-931B-EA73CCD32F0A@mac.com> <20080623071601.GA1553@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080623071601.GA1553@elf.ucw.cz> X-GPG-Fingerprint: 1024D/1CDB0FE3 5422 5C61 F6B7 06FB 7E04 3738 EE25 DE3F 1CDB 0FE3 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1564 Lines: 37 On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > (replying to *very* old mail). > > >>>> We wait until they can continue. > >>> > >>> So if I have a process blocked on an unavilable NFS mount, I can't > >>> suspend? > >> > >> That's correct, you can't. > >> > >> [And I know what you're going to say. ;-)] > > > > Why exactly does suspend/hibernation depend on "TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE" instead > > of a zero preempt_count()? Really what we should do is just iterate over > > all of the actual physical devices and tell each one "Block new IO requests > > preemptably, finish pending DMA, put the hardware in low-power mode, and > > prepare for suspend/hibernate". As long as each driver knows how to do > > those simple things we can have an entirely consistent kernel image for > > both suspend and for hibernation. > > Patch would be welcome, actually. It turns out blocking new > IO-requests is not completely trivial. Is this the same thing the per-device IO-queue-freeze patches for HDAPS also need to do? If so, you may want to talk to Elias Oltmanns about it. Added to CC. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- 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/