[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2504263.kbM6W9JoH9@linux-lqwf.site>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:30:13 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] PM / Runtime: introduce pm_runtime_set[get]_memalloc_noio()
On Wednesday 31 October 2012 00:00:56 Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Okay, I see your point. But acquiring the lock here doesn't solve the
> > problem. Suppose a thread is about to reset a USB mass-storage device.
> > It acquires the lock and sees that the noio flag is clear. But before
> > it can issue the reset, another thread sets the noio flag.
>
> If the USB mass-storage device is being reseted, the flag should be set
> already generally. If the flag is still unset, that means the disk/network
> device isn't added into system(or removed just now), so memory allocation
> with block I/O should be allowed during the reset. Looks it isn't one problem,
> isn't it?
I am afraid it is, because a disk may just have been probed as the deviceis being reset.
Regards
Oliver
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists