[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200805072035.57450.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 20:35:55 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Liam Howlett <howlett@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] Freezer: Try to handle killable tasks
On Wednesday, 7 of May 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 11:41:50AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > @@ -182,6 +183,8 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
> > > /* didnt get the lock, go to sleep: */
> > > spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> > > schedule();
> > > + if (state == TASK_KILLABLE)
> > > + try_to_freeze();
> > > spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > I'm not comfortable with this one. Can the task be killable, but still
> > hold some _other_ mutex? (and then release it only if it actually gets
> > the signal?)
>
> Yes, that's exactly what's supposed to happen.
The question, though, is whether there is a driver that will try to lock this
mutex in its .suspend() or .resume() callback. If there is one, TASK_KILLABLE
won't help the freezer indeed.
Thanks,
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