From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757559AbXGHTIQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:08:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754894AbXGHTIF (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:08:05 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:36957 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754694AbXGHTID (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:08:03 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:15:26 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Alan Stern , Kyle Moffett , Nigel Cunningham , Pavel Machek , Matthew Garrett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org References: <1183871661.3388.282.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1183871661.3388.282.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707082115.27363.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday, 8 July 2007 07:14, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: [--snip--] > > I just think that the freezer approach, as it is, is backward. We can't > have a 3rd party try to discriminate what to freeze and what not, it > will always get something wrong, and in some cases with the wrong timing > or ordering. Nice discussion, except for one thing: the freezer doesn't decide what to freeze. For example, even right now kernel threads decide if they want to be frozen. Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth