[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130306201849.GA4897@thinkpad.lan>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:18:49 +0400
From: Artem Savkov <artem.savkov@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
ibm-acpi@....eng.br, ibm-acpi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thinkpad-acpi: fix potential suspend blocking issue
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:50:39PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/05, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Basically the same as
> > http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/drivers-platform-x86-thinkpad_acpic-move-hotkey_thread_mutex-lock-after-set_freezable.patch.
> > I think Artem's patch is a little better. There doesn't appear to be
> > any locking protocol for tpacpi_lifecycle.
>
> Which seems to have the same problem, hotkey_kthread() still calls
> kthread_freezable_should_stop() under hotkey_thread_mutex.
>
> IOW, we have two try_to_freeze's here, the patch moves only one of
> them outside of the hotkey_thread_mutex.
It's hard for me to judge but this lock does indeed look like it has
been used to block until the thread exits. I'm trying out the "remove
hotkey_thread_mutex completely" approach and everything looks fine so
far.
--
Regards,
Artem
--
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