From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] PM, vfs: use filesystem freezing instead of kthread freezer
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:41:37 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1510301637310.1659-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1510302036140.17538@pobox.suse.cz>
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > > I would say instead "no I/O is allowed from now on". Maybe that's an
> > > overstatement, but I think it comes closer to the truth.
>
> But that's what PM callbacks are for.
Why are PM callbacks any more suitable than the freezer? The most
natural implementation would be for the callback routine to set a flag;
at various strategic points the kthread would check the flag and if it
was set, call a routine that sits around and waits for the suspend to
be over. How does that differ from using the freezer, apart from being
more cumbersome and involving more code?
Also, you never replied to my question about suspend vs. hibernation.
Alan Stern
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] PM, vfs: use filesystem freezing instead of kthread freezer
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:41:37 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1510301637310.1659-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1510302036140.17538@pobox.suse.cz>
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > > I would say instead "no I/O is allowed from now on". Maybe that's an
> > > overstatement, but I think it comes closer to the truth.
>
> But that's what PM callbacks are for.
Why are PM callbacks any more suitable than the freezer? The most
natural implementation would be for the callback routine to set a flag;
at various strategic points the kthread would check the flag and if it
was set, call a routine that sits around and waits for the suspend to
be over. How does that differ from using the freezer, apart from being
more cumbersome and involving more code?
Also, you never replied to my question about suspend vs. hibernation.
Alan Stern
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-30 20:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-30 13:47 [PATCH 0/3] PM, vfs: use filesystem freezing instead of kthread freezer Jiri Kosina
2015-10-30 13:47 ` [PATCH 1/3] power, vfs: move away from PF_KTHREAD freezing in favor of fs freezing Jiri Kosina
2015-10-30 14:04 ` kbuild test robot
2015-10-31 8:55 ` Oliver Neukum
2015-11-02 3:01 ` Neil Brown
2015-11-02 7:54 ` yalin wang
2015-11-02 11:05 ` Jiri Kosina
2015-10-30 13:47 ` [PATCH 2/3] freezer: get rid of the kthread freezer Jiri Kosina
2015-10-30 14:08 ` kbuild test robot
2015-10-30 14:12 ` kbuild test robot
2015-10-30 13:48 ` [PATCH 3/3] freezer: warn if anyone is trying to use freezer on kthreads Jiri Kosina
2015-10-30 15:29 ` [PATCH 0/3] PM, vfs: use filesystem freezing instead of kthread freezer Alan Stern
2015-10-30 15:29 ` Alan Stern
2015-10-30 17:44 ` Pavel Machek
2015-10-30 19:40 ` Jiri Kosina
2015-10-30 20:41 ` Alan Stern [this message]
2015-10-30 20:41 ` Alan Stern
2015-10-30 21:17 ` Jiri Kosina
2015-10-31 3:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-31 8:19 ` Jiri Kosina
2015-11-02 2:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-11-02 10:45 ` Jiri Kosina
2015-11-02 11:00 ` Oliver Neukum
2015-11-02 15:18 ` Alan Stern
2015-11-02 15:18 ` Alan Stern
2015-11-03 0:10 ` Dave Chinner
2015-11-03 4:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-11-03 9:31 ` Jan Kara
2015-11-03 21:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-31 16:01 ` Alan Stern
2015-10-31 16:01 ` Alan Stern
2015-10-31 15:56 ` Alan Stern
2015-10-31 15:56 ` Alan Stern
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1510301637310.1659-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org \
--to=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.