Re: question on resume()
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:49:03 +0100
On Wednesday, 31 January 2007 09:40, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 31. Januar 2007 09:33 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
On Tuesday, 30 January 2007 23:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Generally, you are safe if your driver only calls wake_up() from a process
context, but not from .resume() or .suspend() routines (or from an
unfreezeable kernel thread).
Ah, sorry, I've just realized I was wrong. Processes in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
cannot be frozen! So, the above only applies to wake_up_interruptible().
So the kernel will wait for tasks in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE to finish IO
before it calls suspend()? I am confused.
Yes, it will. The process freezer can only return success if there are no more
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks. Otherwise it fails (after a timeout).
Greetings,
Rafael
--
If you don't have the time to read,
you don't have the time or the tools to write.
- Stephen King
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: question on resume()
- From: Oliver Neukum
- Re: question on resume()
- References:
- question on resume()
- From: Oliver Neukum
- Re: question on resume()
- From: Rafael J. Wysocki
- Re: question on resume()
- From: Oliver Neukum
- question on resume()
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 0 of 4] Generic AIO by scheduling stacks
- Next by Date: Re: [ANN] Userspace M-on-N threading model implementation. Alpha release.
- Previous by thread: Re: question on resume()
- Next by thread: Re: question on resume()
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
