[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111116184157.GA25497@google.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:41:57 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: rjw@...k.pl, pavel@....cz, lenb@...nel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PM/Memory-hotplug: Avoid task freezing failures
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:54:04PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Ok, so by "proper solution", are you referring to a totally different
> method (than grabbing pm_mutex) to implement mutual exclusion between
> subsystems and suspend/hibernation, something like the suspend blockers
> stuff and friends?
> Or are you hinting at just the existing code itself being fixed more
> properly than what this patch does, to avoid having side effects like
> you pointed out?
Oh, nothing fancy. Just something w/o busy looping would be fine.
The stinking thing is we don't have mutex_lock_freezable(). Lack of
proper freezable interface seems to be a continuing problem and I'm
not sure what the proper solution should be at this point. Maybe we
should promote freezable to a proper task state. Maybe freezable
kthread is a bad idea to begin with. Maybe instead of removing
freezable_with_signal() we should make that default, that way,
freezable can hitch on the pending signal handling (this creates
another set of problems tho - ie. who's responsible for clearing
TIF_SIGPENDING?). I don't know.
Maybe just throw in msleep(10) there with fat ugly comment explaining
why the hack is necessary?
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