[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801071901.24926.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 19:01:23 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Acquire device locks on suspend
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > Please see the patch at: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/6/298 . It represents my
> > current idea about how to do that.
>
> It has some problems.
>
> First, note that the list manipulations in dpm_suspend(),
> device_power_down(), and so on aren't protected by dpm_list_mtx. So
> your patch could corrupt the list pointers.
Yes, they need the locking. I have overlooked that, mostly because the locking
was removed by gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch
too (because you assumed there woundn't be any need to remove a device during
a suspend, right?).
> Are you assuming that no other threads can be running at this time?
No, I'm not.
> Note also that device_pm_destroy_suspended() does up(&dev->sem), but it
> doesn't know whether or not dev->sem was locked to begin with.
Do you mean it might have been released already by another thread
calling device_pm_destroy_suspended() on the same device?
> Do you want to rule out the possibility of a driver's suspend or remove
> methods calling destroy_suspended_device() on its own device? With
> your synchronous approach, this would mean that the suspend/resume
> method would indirectly end up calling the remove method. This is
> dangerous at best; with USB it would be a lockdep violation. With an
> asynchronous approach, on the other hand, this wouldn't be a problem.
Well, the asynchronous apprach has the problem that the device may end up
on a wrong list when removed by one of the .suspend() callbacks (and I don't
see how to avoid that without extra complexity). Perhaps that's something we
can live with, though.
One more question: is there any particular reason not to call
device_pm_remove() at the beginning of device_del()?
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