Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 May 2007 02:32:07 +0400 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |