lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm
    On 05/14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    >
    > Hmm, I guess we could add an additional mutex that would only be taken in
    > flush_workqueue() and in _cpu_down()/_cpu_up() via workqueue_cpu_callback()
    > with CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE?

    This will deadlock if work->func() does flush_workqueue(), because it may
    run when _cpu_down() holds this lock (note that it doesn't help if we
    re-introduce take_over_work()).

    This is a reason why mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex) was removed from
    flush_workqueue().

    > It doesn't seem to be a good idea to run flush_workqueue() while CPUs are being
    > taken up and down anyway.

    We can freeze all tasks :) Otherwise we can't forbid them to call
    flush_workqueue().

    flush_workqueue() is OK. create/destroy is a problem.

    Oleg.

    -
    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: 2007-05-14 00:35    [W:0.766 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site