[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: question on resume()
On Tuesday, 30 January 2007 23:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> [Added linux-pm to the Cc list, because I'm going to talk about things that
> I know only from reading the code.]
> On Tuesday, 30 January 2007 17:50, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 30. Januar 2007 17:32 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > > However, you can always inspect the PF_FROZEN flag of the tasks in question
> > > if that's practicable.
> >
> > What would I do with that information? Ignore completion of IO?
> I probably should say "that depends", but that wouldn't be very helpful.
> Getting back to your initial question, which is if wake_up() may be called
> from a driver's .resume() routine, I think the answer is no, it may not,
> because in that case the "notified" tasks would be removed from the wait
> queue, but the refrigerator() would (wrongly) restore their states as
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE (or TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE for wake_up_interruptible()).
> Generally, you are safe if your driver only calls wake_up() from a process
> context, but not from .resume() or .suspend() routines (or from an
> unfreezeable kernel thread).

Ah, sorry, I've just realized I was wrong. Processes in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
cannot be frozen! So, the above only applies to wake_up_interruptible().

You don't need to call wake_up() from .resume(), because there are no tasks
to be notified this way and you shouldn't call wake_up_interruptible() from


If you don't have the time to read,
you don't have the time or the tools to write.
- Stephen King
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-31 09:35    [W:0.164 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site