Re: [linux-pm] [GIT PULL] One more power management fix for 2.6.37

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, November 03, 2010, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > There's apparently an ordering problem with dpm_list_mtx and
> > socket->skt_mutex. Lockdep details appended.
> > 
> > Dominik, Rafael? What's the proper locking order here, and
> > how do we fix this?
> 
> Thanks for noting this; let's see:
> 
> - We add a PCMCIA device holding skt_mutex, therefore we have the ordering
>   (1) skt_mutex -> (2) dpm_list_mtx
> 
> - If we're suspending, dpm_list_mtx is held, but we need to acquire
>   skt_mutex as we modify some data being protected by skt_mutex
>   (1) dpm_list_mtx -> (2) skt_mutex
> 
> Rafael, any idea on how to solve this? How do other subsystems handle such
> an issue? Do they call device_add() with no locks held at all?

They usually do from what I can tell.

Also only a few of them implement the ->suspend_noirq() callback, which is the
one executed under dpm_list_mtx.

What exactly is protected by skt_mutex ?

Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/