Re: [patch update] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM ofI/O devices (rev. 6)

[Alan Stern]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > Speaking of races, have you noticed that the way power.work_done gets 
> > used is racy?
> 
> Not really. :-)
> 
> > You can't wait for the completion before releasing the 
> > lock, but then anything could happen.
> > 
> > A safer approach would be to use a wait_queue.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean exactly.  What's the race?

Somebody calls pm_runtime_suspend when a suspend is already in 
progress.  The routine sees that the status is RPM_SUSPENDING, so it 
prepares to wait until the suspend is finished.  It drops the lock and 
calls wait_for_completion.

But in between those last two steps, the suspend could finish and 
a resume could start up.  Then the wait_for_completion wouldn't return 
until the device was fully resumed!

Now I admit this isn't as bad as it sounds.  The same sort of thing
could happen even if there weren't two suspends going on at the same
time; a resume could occur between when the routine drops the lock and
when it returns.  So okay, forget I mentioned it.

Alan Stern

--
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/