[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200711182322.41354.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:22:40 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@...il.com>
Cc: linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: apm emulation driver broken ?
On Sunday, 18 of November 2007, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, 17 of November 2007, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
> >> ok so now we agreed on this point, can we assert that a user
> >> land thread waiting for an event in an UNINTERRUPTIBLE state
> >> will prevent a suspend to happen ?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
>
> So this driver seems really broken and actually I'm wondering if
> it's used by anyone...
Well, it doesn't seem so.
> See the call to wait_even() made by apm_ioctl(). If any processes
> run this, it will prevent the system to suspend...
True, but does it actually happen in practice?
> And no, I don't know why call wait_event() is called.
I hope somebody knows. :-)
At this point the second branch of the "if (as->suspend_state == SUSPEND_READ)"
can be fixed by replacing wait_event_interruptible() with
wait_event_freezable(), but the fix for the first branch depends on whether or
not the wait_event() is really necessary.
If it can be replaced with an interruptible sleep, we can use
wait_event_freezable() in this case too. Otherwise, the only woking fix would
be to reintroduce the PF_NOFREEZE in there.
Honestly, I'm leaning towards replacing wait_event() in apm_ioctl() with
wait_event_freezable() and seeing what happens ...
Greetings,
Rafael
-
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