[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:43:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async
suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Below is a patch I've just tested, but there's a lockdep problem in it I don't
> know how to solve. Namely, lockdep is apparently unhappy with us not releasing
> the lock taken in device_suspend() and it complains we take it twice in a row
> (which we do, but for another device). I need to use down_read_non_owner()
> to make it shut up and then I also need to use up_read_non_owner() in
> __device_suspend(), although there's the comment in include/linux/rwsem.h
> saying exatly this about that:
>
> /*
> * Take/release a lock when not the owner will release it.
> *
> * [ This API should be avoided as much as possible - the
> * proper abstraction for this case is completions. ]
> */
>
> (I'd like to know your opinion about that). Yet, that's not all, because next
> it complains during resume that __device_resume() releases a lock it didn't
> acquire, which it clearly does, but that is intentional. Unfortunately,
> there's no up_write_non_owner() ...
Hah! I knew it!
How come lockdep didn't complain earlier? What's different about this
patch? Only the nesting annotations? Why should adding annotations
make lockdep less happy?
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists