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

["Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 10/10/2011 08:46 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> 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.
> 

Here it is, just as promised :-)
http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/11/393

>> 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@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Linux Technology Center,
IBM India Systems and Technology Lab