[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200701311004.19477.oneukum@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:04:08 +0100 (MET)
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.name>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
nigel@...el.suspend2.net, pm list <linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: question on resume()
Am Mittwoch, 31. Januar 2007 09:49 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> On Wednesday, 31 January 2007 09:40, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 31. Januar 2007 09:33 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > > On Tuesday, 30 January 2007 23:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > Generally, you are safe if your driver only calls wake_up() from a process
> > > > context, but not from .resume() or .suspend() routines (or from an
> > > > unfreezeable kernel thread).
> > >
> > > Ah, sorry, I've just realized I was wrong. Processes in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> > > cannot be frozen! So, the above only applies to wake_up_interruptible().
> >
> > So the kernel will wait for tasks in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE to finish IO
> > before it calls suspend()? I am confused.
>
> Yes, it will. The process freezer can only return success if there are no more
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks. Otherwise it fails (after a timeout).
So, this means, on suspend():
1. Don't worry about TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
2. Do worry about TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
We have to cease IO and must not call wake_up_interruptible()
Isn't that a race until suspend() is called?
On resume():
1. Don't worry about TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
2. Do not restart IO that may call wake_up_interruptible()
When do we restart such IO?
Regards
Oliver
-
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