lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Update][PATCH] PM / Hibernate: Fix s2disk regression related to unlock_system_sleep()
On 01/19/2012 01:00 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:52:32AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> Somehow I don't think its a hack, based on my perception as described
>> above. But feel free to prove me wrong :-)
>
> Thanks for the explanation. Yeah, I agree and it's much simpler this
> way, which is nice. So, in short, because freezing state can't change
> across lock_system_sleep(), there's no reason to check for freezing
> state on unlock and this nicely resolves the freezer problem together.
>


Absolutely!

> The only thing to be careful is, then, we need to set and clear SKIP
> inside pm_mutex.
>


Not exactly. We need to set SKIP before grabbing pm_mutex and clear it
inside pm_mutex. The reason is that we decided to set SKIP in the first
place just to avoid the freezer from declaring failure when we are
blocked on pm_mutex. If we move it to *after* mutex_lock(&pm_mutex), that
original intention itself is not satisfied, and we will hit freezing
failures - IOW making the set and clear exercise useless!

So, something like this should work perfectly:

lock_system_sleep()
{
freezer_do_not_count();
mutex_lock(&pm_mutex);
current->flags &= ~PF_FREEZER_SKIP;
}

But in the interest of making the code look a bit symmetric, we can do:

lock_system_sleep()
{
freezer_do_not_count();
mutex_lock(&pm_mutex);
}

unlock_system_sleep()
{
current->flags &= ~PF_FREEZER_SKIP;
mutex_unlock(&pm_mutex);
}

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
IBM Linux Technology Center



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-18 20:49    [W:0.081 / U:1.912 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site