On Thu 2007-07-05 10:17:17, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > I have discussed the benefits elsewhere. As for the deadlocks -- do
> > > > you still observe them if you use the version of the freezer which
> > > > doesn't freeze kernel threads?
> > >
> > > In general the only way to guarantee there are no deadlocks is to
> > > construct the graph of dependencies between tasks. Those dependencies
> > > are not in practice observable from outside the tasks, so it is
> > > virtually impossible to construct the graph.
> >
> > In which way can user space tasks depend on each other in a way that
> > allows a them members of that cycle to be in uninterruptible sleep?
>
> - process A calls rename() on a fuse fs
> - process B, the fuse server, starts to process the rename request
> - process B is frozen before it can reply
>
> Now process A is unfreezable. We cannot make rename() restartable,
> hence it cannot be interruptible.
Yes, we are claiming fuse is very special in this regard, and perhaps
even broken.
Let's see. If I SIGSTOP the fuse server, I can get unrelated tasks
unkillable (even for SIGKILL!) forever. That's very special, and maybe
even a FUSE bug. And that is also what makes FUSE special
w.r.t. s2ram.
So no, you can't claim "FUSE is just IPC". It is very special IPC.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/
