[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] PM/Memory-hotplug: Avoid task freezing failures

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:12:43PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> The lock_system_sleep() function is used in the memory hotplug code at
> several places in order to implement mutual exclusion with hibernation.
> However, this function tries to acquire the 'pm_mutex' lock using
> mutex_lock() and hence blocks in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state if it doesn't
> get the lock. This would lead to task freezing failures and hence
> hibernation failure as a consequence, even though the hibernation call path
> successfully acquired the lock.
> This patch fixes this issue by modifying lock_system_sleep() to use
> mutex_lock_interruptible() instead of mutex_lock(), so that it blocks in the
> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state. This would allow the freezer to freeze the blocked
> task. Also, since the freezer could use signals to freeze tasks, it is quite
> likely that mutex_lock_interruptible() returns -EINTR (and fails to acquire
> the lock). Hence we keep retrying in a loop until we acquire the lock. Also,
> we call try_to_freeze() within the loop, so that we don't cause freezing
> failures due to busy looping.
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <>
> static inline void lock_system_sleep(void)
> {
> - mutex_lock(&pm_mutex);
> + /*
> + * We should not use mutex_lock() here because, in case we fail to
> + * acquire the lock, it would put us to sleep in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> + * state, which would lead to task freezing failures. As a
> + * consequence, hibernation would fail (even though it had acquired
> + * the 'pm_mutex' lock).
> + *
> + * Note that mutex_lock_interruptible() returns -EINTR if we happen
> + * to get a signal when we are waiting to acquire the lock (and this
> + * is very likely here because the freezer could use signals to freeze
> + * tasks). Hence we have to keep retrying until we get the lock. But
> + * we have to use try_to_freeze() in the loop, so that we don't cause
> + * freezing failures due to busy looping.
> + */
> + while (mutex_lock_interruptible(&pm_mutex))
> + try_to_freeze();

Hmmm... is this a problem that we need to worry about? If not, I'm
not sure this is a good idea. What if the task calling
lock_system_sleep() is a userland one and has actual outstanding
signal? It would busy spin until it acquire pm_mutex. Maybe that's
okay too given how pm_mutex is used but it's still nasty. If this
isn't a real problem, maybe leave this alone for now?



 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-14 21:07    [W:0.026 / U:8.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site