Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@...>, Romano Giannetti <romanol@...>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, <stable@...>, Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...>, Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@...>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@...>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...>, Dave Jones <davej@...>, Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...>, Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...>, Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...>, <akpm@...>, <alan@...>, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...>
I actually don't think that processes should be frozen really at all.
I agree that filesystems have to be frozen (and I think that checkpointing
of the filesystem or block device is "too clever"), but I just don't think
that has anything to do with freezing processes.
So I'd actually much prefer to freeze at the VFS (and socket layers, etc),
and make sure that anybody who tries to write or do something else that we
cannot do until resuming, will just be blocked (or perhaps just buffered)!
See? I actually think that this process-based thing is barking up the
wrong tree. After all, it's really not the case that we need to stop
processes, and stopping processes really does have some problems. It's
simpler in some ways, but I think a more directed solution would actually
be better.
But I really don't care that deeply per se, exactly because I don't use it
myself. I think people are going down the wrong rabbit-hole, but it
wouldn't _irritate_ me that much except for the fact that it now also
impacts suspend-to-RAM.
Linus
-
