[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/3] Mutually exclude cpu online and suspend/hibernate
On 10/10/2011 07:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 18:15 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> + /*
>>> + * Prevent cpu online and suspend/hibernate (including freezer)
>>> + * operations from running in parallel. Fail cpu online if suspend or
>>> + * hibernate has already started.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!trylock_pm_sleep())
>> Would it be better to hook into the suspend/hibernate notifiers and
>> use them to exclude cpu hotplug from suspend/hibernate, instead of
>> trying to take pm_mutex lock like this?
>> Peter, I remember you pointing out in another patch's review
>> (
>> that introducing more locks in cpu hotplug would be a bad idea. Does that
>> comment hold here as well, or is this fine?
> Arguably pm_mutex is already involved in the whole hotplug dance due to
> suspend using it, that said, I'm not at all familiar with the whole
> suspend/hibernate side of things.
> I tried having a quick look this morning but failed to find the actual
> code.
> I think it would be good to have an overview of the various locks and a
> small description of how they interact/nest.

Sure. I'll put together whatever I have understood, in the form of a patch
to Documentation/power directory and post it tomorrow, for the benefit of

> I just remember being very surprised about finding out the hotplug usage
> of suspend/hibernate wasn't at all serialized against the regular
> hotplug thingies.. (see 144060fee07e9c22e179d00819c83c86fbcbf82c).

Srivatsa S. Bhat <>
Linux Technology Center,
IBM India Systems and Technology Lab

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-10 17:19    [W:0.119 / U:2.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site