[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BDA5B8B.50004@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:24:43 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
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.
Hello,
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?
>>
>> No, it works, the freezable flag is just ignored when I call
>> pm_suspend and I don't run anything else on the workqueue while
>> threads are frozen. It does need to be a single threaded workqueue
>> though, so make sure you don't just change that.
>
> 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.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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