On Monday, 23 July 2007 15:08, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > The reason is that we want them to "park" in safe places, ie. where > > > > there > > > > are no locks held etc. Thus, these safe places need to be chosen > > > > somehow > > > > and since they are not marked throughout the code, we choose the obvious > > > > one. :-) > > > > > > Why shouldn't locks be held? > > > > > > No locks which are required for suspend must be held, sure. But > > > otherwise holding locks doesn't matter at all. > > > > If you can provide a way to tell them apart, this would work. > > Without some marking we can't tell obviously. > > Are there many such locks? We can easily check by adding some > debugging code to the lock primitives, to make them yell if they are > used during suspend.
This way we can only obtain information from systems that use hibernation quite often. Alan has recently proposed to introduce "suspend locks" to be acquired during a suspend/hibernation and such that we can leave uninterruptible tasks that don't hold any of them. Unfortunately, I have no link to his original message at hand. Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
