> -Original Message-
> From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pa...@ucw.cz]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:47 PM
> To: Rafael J. Wysocki
> Cc: Li, Fei; Miklos Szeredi; Goswin von Brederlow; Brown, Len;
> mi...@redhat.com; pet...@infradead.org; Wang, Biao;
> linux...@vger.kernel.org;
Hi!
> > > > > Well, I suppose that information is available to user space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we need an interface for a process to mark itself as
> > > > > PF_FREEZE_LATE or
> > > > > do we need an interface for one process to mark another process as
> > > > > PF_FREEZE_LATE, or both?
> > >
Hi!
Well, I suppose that information is available to user space.
Do we need an interface for a process to mark itself as
PF_FREEZE_LATE or
do we need an interface for one process to mark another process as
PF_FREEZE_LATE, or both?
As a first step marking
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pa...@ucw.cz]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:47 PM
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Li, Fei; Miklos Szeredi; Goswin von Brederlow; Brown, Len;
mi...@redhat.com; pet...@infradead.org; Wang, Biao;
linux...@vger.kernel.org;
On Monday, February 18, 2013 06:26:34 AM Li, Fei wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:r...@sisk.pl]
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 1:38 AM
> > To: Miklos Szeredi
> > Cc: Pavel Machek; Goswin von Brederlow; Li, Fei; Brown, Len;
> > mi...@redhat.com;
On Monday, February 18, 2013 06:26:34 AM Li, Fei wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:r...@sisk.pl]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 1:38 AM
To: Miklos Szeredi
Cc: Pavel Machek; Goswin von Brederlow; Li, Fei; Brown, Len;
mi...@redhat.com;
> -Original Message-
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:r...@sisk.pl]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 1:38 AM
> To: Miklos Szeredi
> Cc: Pavel Machek; Goswin von Brederlow; Li, Fei; Brown, Len;
> mi...@redhat.com; pet...@infradead.org; Wang, Biao;
> linux...@vger.kernel.org;
-Original Message-
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:r...@sisk.pl]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 1:38 AM
To: Miklos Szeredi
Cc: Pavel Machek; Goswin von Brederlow; Li, Fei; Brown, Len;
mi...@redhat.com; pet...@infradead.org; Wang, Biao;
linux...@vger.kernel.org;
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 02:09:50 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:41:16 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> >>
> >> It is essentially the same mechanism that is used to delay the
> >> freezing of kernel
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:41:16 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>
>> It is essentially the same mechanism that is used to delay the
>> freezing of kernel threads after userspace tasks have been frozen.
>> Except it's a lot more
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:41:16 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 06:34:16 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> >>
> >> So I think the PF_FREEZE_DAEMON idea (the patch from Li Fei that
> >> started this
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 06:34:16 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>
>> So I think the PF_FREEZE_DAEMON idea (the patch from Li Fei that
>> started this thread) may still be our best bet at handling this
>> situation. The idea being
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2013-02-13 18:34:16, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> >>
>>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
On Wed 2013-02-13 18:34:16, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 06:34:16 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
So I think the PF_FREEZE_DAEMON idea (the patch from Li Fei that
started this thread) may still be our best bet at handling this
situation. The idea
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:41:16 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 06:34:16 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
So I think the PF_FREEZE_DAEMON idea (the patch from Li Fei that
started this
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:41:16 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
It is essentially the same mechanism that is used to delay the
freezing of kernel threads after userspace tasks have been frozen.
Except it's a lot more
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 02:09:50 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:41:16 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
It is essentially the same mechanism that is used to delay the
freezing of kernel
On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 06:34:16 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >>
> >>> (After all, with FUSE, filesystem clients
On Wed 2013-02-13 18:34:16, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >>
> >>> (After all, with FUSE, filesystem clients are just doing
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>>> (After all, with FUSE, filesystem clients are just doing IPC. In ideal
>>> world, that would be freezeable and killable
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
(After all, with FUSE, filesystem clients are just doing IPC. In ideal
world,
On Wed 2013-02-13 18:34:16, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
(After all, with FUSE,
On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 06:34:16 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
(After
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
>> (After all, with FUSE, filesystem clients are just doing IPC. In ideal
>> world, that would be freezeable and killable with -9).
>
> Exactly.
>
> Attaching a patch
And this time
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> (After all, with FUSE, filesystem clients are just doing IPC. In ideal
> world, that would be freezeable and killable with -9).
Exactly.
Attaching a patch
>
> Pavel
Hi!
> > That's potentially deeadlock-prone, because a task waiting for mutex X may
> > very well be holding mutex Y, so if there's another task waiting for mutex
> > Y,
> > it needs to be frozen at the same time.
> >
> >> The only little detail is how do we implement that...
> >
> > This means
Hi!
That's potentially deeadlock-prone, because a task waiting for mutex X may
very well be holding mutex Y, so if there's another task waiting for mutex
Y,
it needs to be frozen at the same time.
The only little detail is how do we implement that...
This means the only way I can
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
(After all, with FUSE, filesystem clients are just doing IPC. In ideal
world, that would be freezeable and killable with -9).
Exactly.
Attaching a patch
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
(After all, with FUSE, filesystem clients are just doing IPC. In ideal
world, that would be freezeable and killable with -9).
Exactly.
Attaching a
On Monday, February 11, 2013 02:59:56 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:11:40 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, February 10, 2013
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:11:40 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 10, 2013 07:55:05 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>> >> Well, from freezer you need:
>> >>
On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:11:40 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 10, 2013 07:55:05 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> >> Well, from freezer you need:
> >>
> >> 1) user process frozen.
> >>
> >> 2) essential locks _not_
Hi!
> > > > > > The whole memory shrinking we do for hibernation is now done by
> > > > > > allocating
> > > > > > memory, so the freezer is not necessary for *that* and there's
> > > > > > *zero*
> > > > > > difference between suspend and hibernation with respect to why the
> > > > > >
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2013 07:55:05 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Well, from freezer you need:
>>
>> 1) user process frozen.
>>
>> 2) essential locks _not_ held so that block devices are still functional.
>>
>> > > > mmap... what is
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 07:55:05 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
Well, from freezer you need:
1) user process frozen.
2) essential locks _not_ held so that block devices are still functional.
mmap... what is problem
Hi!
The whole memory shrinking we do for hibernation is now done by
allocating
memory, so the freezer is not necessary for *that* and there's
*zero*
difference between suspend and hibernation with respect to why the
freezer is
used.
Funny.
On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:11:40 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 07:55:05 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
Well, from freezer you need:
1) user process frozen.
2) essential locks _not_ held so
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:11:40 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 07:55:05 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
Well, from freezer you
On Monday, February 11, 2013 02:59:56 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:11:40 AM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Sunday, February
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 07:55:05 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > The whole memory shrinking we do for hibernation is now done by
> > > > > allocating
> > > > > memory, so the freezer is not necessary for *that* and there's *zero*
> > > > > difference between suspend and hibernation
Hi!
> > > > The whole memory shrinking we do for hibernation is now done by
> > > > allocating
> > > > memory, so the freezer is not necessary for *that* and there's *zero*
> > > > difference between suspend and hibernation with respect to why the
> > > > freezer is
> > > > used.
> > >
> > >
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 02:51:22 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:33:45 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > For shutdown in userspace there is the sendsigs.omit.d/ to avoid the
> > > > > problem of halting/killing processes of the fuse filesystems (or
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:33:45 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > For shutdown in userspace there is the sendsigs.omit.d/ to avoid the
> > > > problem of halting/killing processes of the fuse filesystems (or other
> > > > services) prematurely. I guess something similar needs to be
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:33:45 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
For shutdown in userspace there is the sendsigs.omit.d/ to avoid the
problem of halting/killing processes of the fuse filesystems (or other
services) prematurely. I guess something similar needs to be done for
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 02:51:22 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:33:45 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
For shutdown in userspace there is the sendsigs.omit.d/ to avoid the
problem of halting/killing processes of the fuse filesystems (or other
Hi!
The whole memory shrinking we do for hibernation is now done by
allocating
memory, so the freezer is not necessary for *that* and there's *zero*
difference between suspend and hibernation with respect to why the
freezer is
used.
Funny. Freezer was put there so
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 07:55:05 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
The whole memory shrinking we do for hibernation is now done by
allocating
memory, so the freezer is not necessary for *that* and there's *zero*
difference between suspend and hibernation with respect to why
48 matches
Mail list logo
