On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 15:41, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Tuesday 11 September 2007 23:23:32 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 15:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:27, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 11 September 2007 21:04:22 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 05:54, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Commit 831441862956fffa17b9801db37e6ea1650b0f69 (Freezer: make > kernel > > > > > threads > > > > > > > nonfreezable by default) breaks freezing when attempting to > > > > > > > resume > from an > > > > > > > initrd, because the init (which is freezeable) spins while > > > > > > > waiting > for > > > > > another > > > > > > > thread to run /linuxrc, but doesn't check whether it has been > > > > > > > told > to > > > > > enter > > > > > > > the refrigerator. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hm. > > > > > > > > > > > > I use a resume from an initrd on a regular basis and it works > without the > > > > > patch > > > > > > below. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we need to investigate what happens in your test case a bit. > > > > > > > > > > Ah. That makes me realise that I see that too - my AMD64 uniprocessor > laptop > > > > > didn't need the patch (guess that's why I didn't notice the need and > ack'd > > > > > the patch). But my x86 SMP machine... it needs this. I'll see if > they're > > > > > running on different processors. > > > > > > > > Well, strange. My x86_64 SMP machines don't need the patch too. > > > > > > Anyway, yes, init is freezable, but should it be? > > > > > > I mean, shouldn't we rather add PF_NOFREEZE to kernel_init()? > > > > Argh, no. PF_NOFREEZE is inherited by the children. > > > > So, I think that your patch is correct, but there's some suspend2-specific > > stuff in it. I've rediffed it against 2.6.23-rc6 and moved try_to_freeze() > > before yield(). > > Ah yeah. Sorry about that. Is there some reason I've forgotten that makes the > order of try_to_freeze & yield in a loop like this matter?
Technically it's not that important, but conceptually try_to_freeze() should happen right after we've been woken up. > By the way, I had a go at getting fuse processes frozen today. Seems to be > doable if you take a freeze filesystems prior to processes approach. I've got > a lot more testing and a bit of cleaning up to do before I'd want to show it > to anyone, but did successfully do cycles with sshfs, fuseiso and curlftpfs. Sounds promising. :-) > Of course I don't seriously expect it to get merged - everyone's too much in > love with kexec at the moment :) Well, I guess it'll take some time to get that work reliable and it would be nice to have a fix before it's ready. Greetings, Rafael - 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/
