From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] PM: Add suspend blocking work. Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:18:28 +0200 Message-ID: <4BD7E144.6050608@kernel.org> References: <1272429119-12103-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1272429119-12103-2-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1272429119-12103-3-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1272429119-12103-4-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1272429119-12103-5-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1272429119-12103-6-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1272429119-12103-7-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <4BD7D948.4080406@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arve_Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= Cc: Len Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hello, On 04/28/2010 09:02 AM, Arve Hj=F8nnev=E5g wrote: >> Maybe work->active can be an atomic_t and the lock can be removed? > = > I need the spinlock to prevent the work from getting re-queued before > suspend_unblock. OIC. > I'm not sure what the best terminology is here, but cancel_work_sync() > only waits for work running on all the cpu-workqueues of the last > workqueue. So, if the caller queued the work on more than one > workqueue, suspend_blocking_work_destroy does not ensure that the > suspend_blocking_work structure is not still in use (it should trigger > the WARN_ON though). Right, I was thinking about different cpu_workqueues and yeah, the terminology gets pretty confusing. Acked-by: Tejun Heo Thanks. -- = tejun