Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761651AbXKQM3P (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:29:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754280AbXKQM3B (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:29:01 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:59973 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750792AbXKQM3A (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:29:00 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Franck Bui-Huu Subject: Re: apm emulation driver broken ? Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:46:51 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, lkml References: <200711171059.57462.rjw@sisk.pl> <473ED715.9000004@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <473ED715.9000004@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711171346.51363.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1863 Lines: 53 On Saturday, 17 of November 2007, Franck Bui-Huu wrote: > 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 ? Yes. Rafael - 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/