From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Freezing of kernel threads
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 11:25:39 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0705121120280.3986@woody.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705122017.32792.rjw@sisk.pl>
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Of course, that would also require us to rewrite the freezer itself quite a
> bit, but IMO it's worthy of doing.
>
> Thoughts?
I'd much prefer it. One of the reasons I hate the freezer so much is that
it ends up affecting things it really has no business affecting. Why
should a random kernel thread have to havecode NOT to care? So it makes
much more sense to default to "I don't care about the freezer", and then
people who do care can say so and add their own code.
That said, I also suspect that suspend should depend less on the freezer
in the first place, and depend more on just shutting up specific actions.
The freezer is kind of a blunt instrument that just stops everything,
without actually understanding *what* it stops. As a result (since it
really doesn't know what it's doing), it ends up having all the issues
with "ok, I don't know what I'm doing, but that guy says I shouldn't do
it, so I won't".
Blunt instruments are often _easier_ (compare with the global kernel lock
in SMP), but they end up being very inflexible and hard to get rid of
later when you want to do something more intelligent.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-12 18:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-12 18:17 Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-12 18:25 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2007-05-12 21:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-12 19:17 ` Pavel Machek
2007-05-12 19:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-12 22:14 ` Pavel Machek
2007-05-12 22:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-12 19:36 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-05-12 19:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-12 20:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-13 8:33 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-05-13 16:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-13 20:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-13 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-13 21:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-14 6:18 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-05-14 7:26 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-05-14 10:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-05-14 7:41 ` Dipankar Sarma
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.0.98.0705121120280.3986@woody.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®