[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707061131.08475.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:31:07 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, pavel@....cz,
paulus@...ba.org, johannes@...solutions.net,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mjg59@...f.ucam.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
Am Freitag, 6. Juli 2007 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 09:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > The only reason (I know of) why we don't handle uninterruptible tasks in the
> > freezer is that we're afraid of the suspend process deadlocking with an
> > uninterruptible task holding a lock, but AFAICS the probability of such an
> > event is extremely small.
>
> What would deadlock specifically ? One of the drivers trying to acquire
> that lock ? It would be a driver bug then.
Your driver's write method looks like:
mutex_lock();
poke_some_hardware();
wait_event_uninterruptible(); //for result
res = evaluate_result();
mutex_unlock();
return res;
If you put a task into the refrigerator at wait_event_interruptible()
you will deadlock if you need this lock for the driver to go to suspend.
The suspend method then must not take the lock _and_ it must be
aware that there may be an ongoing operation.
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