Re: [PATCH v3] PM/Memory-hotplug: Avoid task freezing failures

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:34:40PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> I haven't tested this solution yet. Let me know if this solution looks
> >> good and I'll send it out as a patch after testing and analyzing some
> >> corner cases, if any.
> 
> I tested this, and it works great! I'll send the patch in some time.

Awesome.

> > * I think it would be better to remove direct access to pm_mutex and
> >   use [un]lock_system_sleep() universally.  I don't think hinging it
> >   on CONFIG_HIBERNATE_CALLBACKS buys us anything.
> > 
> 
> Which direct access to pm_mutex are you referring to?
> Other than suspend/hibernation call paths, I think mem-hotplug is the only
> subsystem trying to access pm_mutex. I haven't checked thoroughly though. 
> 
> But yes, using lock_system_sleep() for mutually excluding some code path
> from suspend/hibernation is good, and that is one reason why I wanted
> to fix this API ASAP. But as long as memory hotplug is the only direct user
> of pm_mutex, is it justified to remove the CONFIG_HIBERNATE_CALLBACKS
> restriction and make it generic? I don't know...
> 
> Or, are you saying that we should use these APIs even in suspend/hibernate
> call paths? That's not such a bad idea either...

Yeap, all.  It's just confusing to have two different types of access
to a single lock and I don't believe CONFIG_HIBERNATE_CALLBACKS is a
meaningful optimization in this case.

Thank you.

-- 
tejun
--
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/