On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
quoted text
> On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:27, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> > 
> > On Tuesday 11 September 2007 21:04:22 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 05:54, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > > Hi all.
> > > > 
> > > > Commit 831441862956fffa17b9801db37e6ea1650b0f69 (Freezer: make kernel 
> > threads
> > > > nonfreezable by default) breaks freezing when attempting to resume from an
> > > > initrd, because the init (which is freezeable) spins while waiting for 
> > another
> > > > thread to run /linuxrc, but doesn't check whether it has been told to 
> > enter
> > > > the refrigerator.
> > > 
> > > Hm.
> > > 
> > > I use a resume from an initrd on a regular basis and it works without the 
> > patch
> > > below.
> > > 
> > > I think we need to investigate what happens in your test case a bit.
> > 
> > Ah. That makes me realise that I see that too - my AMD64 uniprocessor laptop 
> > didn't need the patch (guess that's why I didn't notice the need and ack'd 
> > the patch). But my x86 SMP machine... it needs this. I'll see if they're 
> > running on different processors.
> 
> Well, strange.  My x86_64 SMP machines don't need the patch too.

Anyway, yes, init is freezable, but should it be?

I mean, shouldn't we rather add PF_NOFREEZE to kernel_init()?

Greetings,
Rafael
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/