Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] Freezer: Try to handle killable tasks

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, 7 of May 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 11:41:50AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > @@ -182,6 +183,8 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, 
> > >  		/* didnt get the lock, go to sleep: */
> > >  		spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> > >  		schedule();
> > > +		if (state == TASK_KILLABLE)
> > > +			try_to_freeze();
> > >  		spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > 
> > I'm not comfortable with this one. Can the task be killable, but still
> > hold some _other_ mutex? (and then release it only if it actually gets
> > the signal?)
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what's supposed to happen.

The question, though, is whether there is a driver that will try to lock this
mutex in its .suspend() or .resume() callback.  If there is one, TASK_KILLABLE
won't help the freezer indeed.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/