On Monday, February 04, 2013 04:32:11 AM Liu, Chuansheng wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alan Stern [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 11:16 AM > > To: Li, Fei > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; Liu, Chuansheng > > Subject: RE: [PATCH V4] suspend: enable freeze timeout configuration through > > sys > > > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Li, Fei wrote: > > > > > > -> the situation described above shouldn't happen and if it does, then > > > > there > > > > is a bug that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > Yes, we agree with that it's a bug that needs to be fixed, and we are > > > already > > done > > > for some cases. > > > During the process, we realize that tuning the timeout value to smaller > > > value > > will help > > > to expose freezing failure for some cases. > > > > Besides, the underlying bug is well known (fuse filesystems hanging > > because the fuse daemon gets frozen before the process doing file I/O, > > or something like that) and so far nobody has a good idea of how to > > fix it. > Indeed, we have some well-known deadlock issues existed there. > And once there is deadlock case, this patch is helpful to the user experience, > because 20s is pointless for those deadlock case. > > Also even adjusting the 20s to 2s, we still can get to know the process stack > who rejecting the freezing, > so this freezing configuration is really helpful to avoid 20s waiting for > that deadlock case. > Alan and Rafael, could you consider this patch? Thanks.
OK, I'll take it. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
