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 self with PF_FREEZE_LATE and inheriting this
> > > > flag across fork/clone would work for most cases, I think.
> > >
> > > OK, so we can just have a switch for that in /proc I suppose.
> >
> > Thanks for feedback and suggestion.
> >
> > We have ever tried similar idea, expose interface
> > /sys/power/pm_freeze_daemon,
> > userspace tasks write 1 to this attribute to make itself to be frozen at
> > the same time
> > with kernel tasks, and it worked in our experiment.
> >
> > Do you think it's suitable and enough to use such attribute
> > /sys/power/pm_freeze_late,
> > or other more suitable place under /proc suggested?
>
> I think it should be inder /proc, because that's where controls related to
> process behavior are located. E.g. /proc/PID/freeze_late or something like
> that.
freeze_priority?
I _hope_ we will not need more than three priorities, (user, fused, kernel),
but
I hoped not no need more than two before, so...
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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
