On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Li, Fei wrote:
>> From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pa...@ucw.cz]
>>
>> 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...
>
> IMHO, we still use two priorities,
r.kernel.org; fuse-de...@lists.sourceforge.net;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Liu, Chuansheng
> Subject: Re: Getting rid of freezer for suspend [was Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH]
> fuse:
> make fuse daemon frozen along with kernel threads]
>
> Hi!
>
> > > > > >
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?
> > >
n, Len;
> > mi...@redhat.com; pet...@infradead.org; Wang, Biao;
> > linux...@vger.kernel.org; fuse-de...@lists.sourceforge.net;
> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Liu, Chuansheng
> > Subject: Re: Getting rid of freezer for suspend [was Re: [fuse-devel]
> > [PAT
r.kernel.org; fuse-de...@lists.sourceforge.net;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Liu, Chuansheng
> Subject: Re: Getting rid of freezer for suspend [was Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH]
> fuse:
> make fuse daemon frozen along with kernel threads]
>
> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 02:09:50 PM M
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 thre
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 difficu
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 thread
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 th
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 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 ar
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 IPC
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 2:13 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 fo
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 th
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 07:55:0
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_ hel
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
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 probl
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.
> > >
> > > Fu
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 oth
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
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
> > > freeze. The fuse filesystem has to tell the kernel what is u
Hi,
On Saturday, February 09, 2013 06:49:10 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > The only way to *reliably* freeze fuse filesystems is to let it freeze
> > > even if there are outstanding requests. But that's the hardest to
> > > implement, because then it needs to allow freezing of tasks waitin
Hi!
> > The only way to *reliably* freeze fuse filesystems is to let it freeze
> > even if there are outstanding requests. But that's the hardest to
> > implement, because then it needs to allow freezing of tasks waiting on
> > i_mutex, for example, which is currently not possible. But this is
>
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:59:19AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> [CC list restored]
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Goswin von Brederlow
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:27:40AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Li Fei wrote:
> >> >
> >> > There is we
[CC list restored]
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:27:40AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Li Fei wrote:
>> >
>> > There is well known issue that freezing will fail in case that fuse
>> > daemon is frozen fi
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Li Fei wrote:
>>
>> There is well known issue that freezing will fail in case that fuse
>> daemon is frozen firstly with some requests not handled, as the fuse
>> usage task is waiting for the response from
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Li Fei wrote:
>
> There is well known issue that freezing will fail in case that fuse
> daemon is frozen firstly with some requests not handled, as the fuse
> usage task is waiting for the response from fuse daemon and can't be
> frozen.
>
> To solve the issue above
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Li Fei wrote:
>
> There is well known issue that freezing will fail in case that fuse
> daemon is frozen firstly with some requests not handled, as the fuse
> usage task is waiting for the response from fuse daemon and can't be
> frozen.
>
> To solve the issue above
There is well known issue that freezing will fail in case that fuse
daemon is frozen firstly with some requests not handled, as the fuse
usage task is waiting for the response from fuse daemon and can't be
frozen.
To solve the issue above, make fuse daemon frozen after all all user
space processe
34 matches
Mail list logo
