Re: [PATCH v2] PM/Memory-hotplug: Avoid task freezing failures

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2011, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:54:04PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > Ok, so by "proper solution", are you referring to a totally different
> > method (than grabbing pm_mutex) to implement mutual exclusion between
> > subsystems and suspend/hibernation, something like the suspend blockers
> > stuff and friends?
> > Or are you hinting at just the existing code itself being fixed more
> > properly than what this patch does, to avoid having side effects like
> > you pointed out?
> 
> Oh, nothing fancy.  Just something w/o busy looping would be fine.
> The stinking thing is we don't have mutex_lock_freezable().  Lack of
> proper freezable interface seems to be a continuing problem and I'm
> not sure what the proper solution should be at this point.  Maybe we
> should promote freezable to a proper task state.  Maybe freezable
> kthread is a bad idea to begin with.

It generally is, but some of them really want to be freezable.

> Maybe instead of removing
> freezable_with_signal() we should make that default, that way,
> freezable can hitch on the pending signal handling (this creates
> another set of problems tho - ie. who's responsible for clearing
> TIF_SIGPENDING?).  I don't know.
> 
> Maybe just throw in msleep(10) there with fat ugly comment explaining
> why the hack is necessary?

Perhaps.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>