[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACVXFVPy_yhNRnS1J7xmSErd+XkLkRHpTOLitSL+Nm=2S82whA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:35:50 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] PM / Runtime: force memory allocation with no I/O
during runtime_resume callbcack
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> This patch applies the introduces tsk_memalloc_forbid_io() and
>> tsk_memalloc_allow_io() to force memory allocation with no I/O
>> during runtime_resume callback.
>>
>> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
>> Cc: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
>> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
>> index 3148b10..76836c1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
>> @@ -652,7 +652,20 @@ static int rpm_resume(struct device *dev, int rpmflags)
>> if (!callback && dev->driver && dev->driver->pm)
>> callback = dev->driver->pm->runtime_resume;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Deadlock might be caused if memory allocation with GFP_KERNEL
>> + * happens inside runtime_resume callback of one block device's
>> + * ancestor or the block device itself. The easiest approach is
>> + * to forbid I/O inside runtime_resume of all devices.
>> + *
>> + * In fact, it can be done only if the deivce is a block device
>> + * or there is one block device descendant. But that may become
>> + * complicated and not efficient because device tree traversing
>> + * is involved.
>> + */
>> + tsk_memalloc_forbid_io(current);
>> retval = rpm_callback(callback, dev);
>> + tsk_memalloc_allow_io(current);
>
> This is not so good. What happens if I/O was already forbidden when
> this function was called?
You are right, the old flag should be saved before forbidding and restored
after allowing.
Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
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