Re: [RFC PATCH] PM: Optionally block user fork during freeze to improve performance

[David Hildenbrand]

On 09.06.25 06:05, zhangzihuan wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> Thanks a lot for the feedback!
>
> 在 2025/6/6 16:22, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
> > This isn't blocking fork(), this is failing fork(). Huge difference.
> > Also problematic, because -EBUSY is not a recognised return value of
> > fork(). As such, no existing software will adequately handle it.
> >   I completely agree there's a significant difference between failing
> > and blocking fork().
> The intent was to prevent late-created user tasks from interfering with
> the freezing process, but you're right: returning -EBUSY is not valid
> for fork(), and existing user-space programs wouldn't expect or handle
> that properly.
> As a next step, I'm considering switching to a blocking mechanism
> instead — that is, have user fork() temporarily sleep if it's attempted
> during the freeze window. That should avoid breaking user-space
> expectations while still helping maintain freeze stability.
> Would that be more acceptable?

Can't this problem be mitigated by simply not scheduling the new fork'ed 
process while the system is frozen?

Or what exact scenario are you worried about?

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb