Re: [PATCH] PM: Acquire device locks on suspend

Alan Stern
2008-01-10T15:35:21Z

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> On Wednesday, 9 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > In dpm_resume() you shouldn't need to use dpm_list_mtx at all, because
> > > > the list_move_tail() comes before the resume_device(). It's the same
> > > > as in dpm_power_up().
> > >
> > > Still, device_pm_schedule_removal() can (in theory) be called concurrently
> > > with dpm_resume() by another thread and this might corrupt the list without
> > > the locking.
> >
> > Any thread doing that would be in violation of the restrictions you're
> > going to add to the kerneldoc for destroy_suspended_device().
> >
> > However the overhead for the locking isn't critical. There won't be
> > any contention (if everything is working right) and it isn't a hot path
> > anyway. So you can leave the extra locking in if you want. But then
> > you should put it in all the routines where the lists get manipulated,
> > not just some of them. That is: device_power_down(), dpm_power_up(),
> > and even unregister_dropped_devices().
>
> Except for those run on one CPU with interrupts disabled, I think.

Not unregister_dropped_devices()!

> > > > Also, the kerneldoc for destroy_suspended_device() should contain an
> > > > extra paragraph warning that the routine should never be called except
> > > > within the scope of a system sleep transition. In practice this means
> > > > it has to be directly or indirectly invoked by a suspend or resume
> > > > method.
> > >
> > > Or by a CPU hotplug notifier (that will be the majority of cases, IMO).
> >
> > In your patch the call is made in response to a CPU_UP_CANCELED_FROZEN
> > notification. Isn't it true that this notification is issued only as
> > part of a system sleep transition?
>
> Yes, it is.

So it counts as being indirectly invoked by a resume method.

Alan Stern