[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201011040604.05183.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 06:04:05 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Linux-pm mailing list" <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [GIT PULL] One more power management fix for 2.6.37
On Wednesday, November 03, 2010, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > There's apparently an ordering problem with dpm_list_mtx and
> > socket->skt_mutex. Lockdep details appended.
> >
> > Dominik, Rafael? What's the proper locking order here, and
> > how do we fix this?
>
> Thanks for noting this; let's see:
>
> - We add a PCMCIA device holding skt_mutex, therefore we have the ordering
> (1) skt_mutex -> (2) dpm_list_mtx
>
> - If we're suspending, dpm_list_mtx is held, but we need to acquire
> skt_mutex as we modify some data being protected by skt_mutex
> (1) dpm_list_mtx -> (2) skt_mutex
>
> Rafael, any idea on how to solve this? How do other subsystems handle such
> an issue? Do they call device_add() with no locks held at all?
They usually do from what I can tell.
Also only a few of them implement the ->suspend_noirq() callback, which is the
one executed under dpm_list_mtx.
What exactly is protected by skt_mutex ?
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