lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33)
Date
On Tuesday 08 December 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > The wait queue plus the op_complete flag combo plays the role of the locking
> > in the Linus' picture
>
> Please just use the lock. Don't make up your own locking crap. Really.
>
> Your patch is horrible. Exactly because your locking is horribly
> mis-designed. You can't say things are complete from an interrupt, for
> example, since you made it some random bitfield, which has unknown
> characteristics (ie non-atomic read-modify-write etc).

I didn't assume anyone would check it from an interrupt, because I didn't see
a point. In fact I didn't assume anyone except for the PM core would check it.
In case this assumption is wrong, it can be easily put under the dev->sem
that we take anyway before calling the bus type (etc.) callbacks.

Anyway, if we use an rwsem, it won't be checkable from interrupt context just
as well.

> The fact is, any time anybody makes up a new locking mechanism, THEY
> ALWAYS GET IT WRONG. Don't do it.
>
> I suggested using the rwsem locking for a good reason. It made sense. It
> was simpler. Just do it that way, stop making up crap.

Suppose we use rwsem and during suspend each child uses a down_read() on a
parent and then the parent uses down_write() on itself. What if, whatever the
reason, the parent is a bit early and does the down_write() before one of the
children has a chance to do the down_read()? Aren't we toast?

Do we need any direct protection against that or does it just work itself out
in a way I just don't see right now?

Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-08 20:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans