Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Mutually exclude cpu online and suspend/hibernate

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

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
>> (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1198312/focus=1199087)
>> 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
all.

> 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).
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat  <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Linux Technology Center,
IBM India Systems and Technology Lab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/