lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm
    Date
    On Sunday, 13 May 2007 23:34, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > On 05/13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > >
    > > > > On Sunday, 13 May 2007 22:30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I think the better fix (at least for now) is
    > > > > >
    > > > > > - #define create_freezeable_workqueue(name) __create_workqueue((name), 0, 1)
    > > > > > + #define create_freezeable_workqueue(name) __create_workqueue((name), 1, 1)
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Alex, do you really need a multithreaded wq?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Rafael, what do you think?
    > > > >
    > > Sure, if a singlethread workqueue is sufficient for Alex, I agree that this
    > > would be preferable.
    >
    > Great. Alex?
    >
    > > @@ -819,20 +843,31 @@ static int __devinit workqueue_cpu_callb
    > >
    > > +
    > > + case CPU_DEAD_FROZEN:
    > > + if (wq->freezeable) {
    > > + take_over_work(wq, cpu);
    > > + thaw_process(cwq->thread);
    >
    > Suppose that PF_NOFREEZE task T does flush_workqueue(), and CPU 1 has pending
    > works. T does flush_cpu_workqueue(0), CPU_DEAD_FROZEN moves works from CPU 1
    > to CPU 0, T does flush_cpu_workqueue(1) and finds nothing.

    I don't think this is possible, because we've acquired workqueue_mutex in
    _cpu_down().

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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-05-13 23:49    [W:0.022 / U:90.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site