Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760565AbXKQL5Z (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:57:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755086AbXKQL5R (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:57:17 -0500 Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.184]:31717 "EHLO mu-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755077AbXKQL5P (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:57:15 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=cF+jkmJ0o8Dx9X/yfdBLbdlBFNbNJSbewLenevF/hsg2YVKtR+sN402yzuX3TzW2O/qSFhzWPYXPSIUEjPvnkCVqBvVu7bgmfugQcUsqchlCxIqFAszsVOHdnP9T9KhgOr+ZfzY/lZUEaCP9D9loyku1y/uMPxvorHqUUGW3Nf8= Message-ID: <473ED715.9000004@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:57:09 +0100 From: Franck Bui-Huu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, lkml Subject: Re: apm emulation driver broken ? References: <200711162220.56494.rjw@sisk.pl> <473EAC1A.1000205@gmail.com> <200711171059.57462.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <200711171059.57462.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1717 Lines: 50 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, 17 of November 2007, Franck Bui-Huu wrote: >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> However, using PF_NOFREEZE to prevent this from happening doesn't seem to be >>> a good idea. >>> >> Indeed but... >> >>> I'd probably use wait_event_freezable() (defined in >>> include/linux/freezer.h) for that. >> ...I would just revert this bits from now to make sure this driver >> work again for v2.6.24. > > I'd prefer not to. > > The PF_NOFREEZE was not present in 2.6.23 already and I wouldn't like to > reintroduce it now. > > Why do you think that using wait_event_freezable() would not work, BTW? > I've never claimed this. I just said it may be safer to revert the changes for v2.6.24 and improve the current code for next releases. >>> It tries to send them fake signals and waits for them to freeze. If >>> they don't freeze within the timeout, it fails and clears their >>> TIF_FREEZE bits. >> But send_fake_signal() seems to wake up task in INTERRUPTIBLE state >> only. Looking at signal_wake_up(), it basically do: >> >> wake_up_state(t, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); >> >> What am I missing ? > > Nothing. :-) > > I didn't remember the change that made the freezer use TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE > explicitly in there (should have looked at the current code before replying). > ok so now we agreed on this point, can we assert that a user land thread waiting for an event in an UNINTERRUPTIBLE state will prevent a suspend to happen ? Franck - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/