[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110823223518.GI2803@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:35:18 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: try_to_freeze() called with IRQs disabled on ARM
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:17:03AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> if (freezing() && IRQ disabled) {
> bust on IRQ;
> try_to_freeze();
> replug IRQ;
> }
>
> But, that can't be right. The current code isn't triggering warning
> from scheduler code, right? If the above is the case, it should be
> triggering that. What am I missing?
I think the refrigerator() code was actually doing that through
spin_[un]lock_irq(), so it was accidentally masking the problem. It
definitely seems to need fixing.
Anyways, for now, we can do two things,
1. if (freezing()) { irq_save; try_to_freeze(); irq_restore; } w/ BIG
FAT UGLY comment.
2. Drop might_sleep() from try_to_freeze(). Moving it to
refrigerator() wouldn't help much. It would just trigger more
sporadically during freeze, which is arguably worse than now.
I'd prefer #1 given that it documents the breakage while also
restoring the IRQ state afterwards FWIW.
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