[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100430172618.GA9043@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:26:18 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Magnus Damm <damm@...l.co.jp>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...onice.net>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api.
On 04/30, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> On 04/29/2010 11:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> Also, we already have one PM workqueue. It is used for runtime PM, but I guess
> >>> it may be used just as well for the opportunistic suspend. It is freezable,
> >>> but would it hurt?
> >>
> > Freezable workqueues have to be singlethread or else there will be unfixable
> > races, so you can safely assume things will stay as they are in this respect.
>
> Rafael, can you elaborate a bit more on this? Just in case I missed
> something while doing cmwq as it currently doesn't have such limit.
Currently _cpu_down() can't flush and/or stop the frozen cwq->thread.
IIRC this is fixable, but needs the nasty complications. We should
thaw + stop the frozen cwq->thread, then move the pending works to
another CPU.
Oleg.
--
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