On Mon 2018-12-03 14:53:51, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 03-12-18 14:10:06, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Mon 2018-12-03 13:38:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 03-12-18 13:31:49, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > On 12/03, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Now, I wouldn't mind to revert this because the code is really old and > > > > > we haven't seen many bug reports about failing suspend yet. But what > > > > > is > > > > > the actual plan to make this work properly? > > > > > > > > I don't see a simple solution... > > > > > > > > But we need to fix exec/de_thread anyway, then we can probably > > > > reconsider > > > > this patch. > > > > > > My concern is that de_thread fix might be too disruptive for stable > > > kernels while we might want to have a simple enough fix for the the > > > suspend issue in the meantime. That was actually the primary reason I've > > > acked the hack even though I didn't like it. > > > > Do we care about failing sleep in stable? Does someone hit the issue there? > > > > This sounds like issue only Android is hitting, and they run very > > heavily patched kernels, far away from mainline or stable. > > But the underlying issue is the same and independent on their patches > AFAIU. And is this really a common problem to care about in stable? I > dunno to be honest but it sounds annoying for sure. Failing suspend is > something that doesn't make your day when you are in hurry and want > find out only later when your laptop heats up your bag ;)
In general, yes. In practice, if it happens 1 in 1000000 suspends, you
don't care that much (but Android cares).
Do we actually have reports of this happening for people outside
Android?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
