> From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>
>
> When the cgroup freezer is used to freeze tasks we do not want to thaw
> those tasks during resume. Currently we test the cgroup freezer
> state of the resuming tasks to see if the cgroup is FROZEN. If so
> then we don't thaw the task. However, the FREEZING state also indicates
> that the task should remain frozen.
>
> This also avoids a problem pointed out by Oren Ladaan: the freezer state
> transition from FREEZING to FROZEN is updated lazily when userspace reads
> or writes the freezer.state file in the cgroup filesystem. This means that
> resume will thaw tasks in cgroups which should be in the FROZEN state if
> there is no read/write of the freezer.state file to trigger this
> transition before suspend.
>
> NOTE: Another "simple" solution would be to always update the cgroup
> freezer state during resume. However it's a bad choice for several reasons:
> Updating the cgroup freezer state is somewhat expensive because it requires
> walking all the tasks in the cgroup and checking if they are each frozen.
> Worse, this could easily make resume run in N^2 time where N is the number
> of tasks in the cgroup. Finally, updating the freezer state from this code
> path requires trickier locking because of the way locks must be ordered.
>
> Instead of updating the freezer state we rely on the fact that lazy
> updates only manage the transition from FREEZING to FROZEN. We know that
> a cgroup with the FREEZING state may actually be FROZEN so test for that
> state too. This makes sense in the resume path even for partially-frozen
> cgroups -- those that really are FREEZING but not FROZEN.
>
> Reported-by: Oren Ladaan <orenl@cs.columbia.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: Cedric Le Goater <legoater@free.fr>
> Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
> Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> Cc:
linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org