Re: [PATCH 3/3] PM / hibernate / memory hotplug: Rework mutual exclusion

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, August 30, 2013 06:35:12 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 02:39 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, August 30, 2013 06:23:19 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 23:18 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > Since all of the memory hotplug operations have to be carried out
> > > > under device_hotplug_lock, they won't need to acquire pm_mutex if
> > > > device_hotplug_lock is held around hibernation.
> > > > 
> > > > For this reason, make the hibernation code acquire
> > > > device_hotplug_lock after freezing user space processes and
> > > > release it before thawing them.  At the same tim drop the
> > > > lock_system_sleep() and unlock_system_sleep() calls from
> > > > lock_memory_hotplug() and unlock_memory_hotplug(), respectively.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  kernel/power/hibernate.c |    4 ++++
> > > >  kernel/power/user.c      |    2 ++
> > > >  mm/memory_hotplug.c      |    4 ----
> > > >  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > Index: linux-pm/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> > > > +++ linux-pm/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> > > > @@ -652,6 +652,7 @@ int hibernate(void)
> > > >  	if (error)
> > > >  		goto Exit;
> > > >  
> > > > +	lock_device_hotplug();
> > > 
> > > Since hibernate() can be called from sysfs, do you think the tool may
> > > see this as a circular dependency with p_active again?  This shouldn't
> > > be a problem in practice, though.
> > 
> > /sys/power/state isn't a device attribute even and is never removed, so it
> > would be very sad and disappointing if lockdep reported that as a circular
> > dependency.  The deadlock is surely not possible here anyway.
> 
> Agreed.  The code looks good otherwise, and this is a nice cleanup.  If
> it is OK to ignore the possible warning from the tool (which I do not
> know the rule here),

Well, if it complains, we'll just need to add some annotations to this.
The code is correct I believe.

> feel free to add my ack to patch 2/3 and 3/3 as well.

I will, thanks!


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/