Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756077Ab0HDQfl (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:35:41 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:49076 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755659Ab0HDQfj (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:35:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 17:35:09 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pavel@ucw.cz, florian@mickler.org, rjw@sisk.pl, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, swetland@google.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread Message-ID: <20100804163509.GA31523@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20100731175841.GA9367@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100731215214.2543c07e@infradead.org> <20100801054816.GI2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100731230101.7cc1d8c7@infradead.org> <20100801191228.GL2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100801154708.19817b75@infradead.org> <20100802011006.GS2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100803183447.0275c134@infradead.org> <20100804163216.GB24163@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100804163216.GB24163@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 834 Lines: 18 On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 09:32:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > If this doesn't work for the Android folks for whatever reason, another > approach would be to do the freeze in user code, which could track > whether any user-level resources (pthread mutexes, SysV semas, whatever) > where held, and do the freeze on a thread-by-thread basis within each > "victim" application as the threads reach safe points. The main problem I see with the cgroups solution is that it doesn't seem to do anything to handle avoiding loss of wakeup events. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org -- 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/