Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-15393-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CGME20231227084252epcas2p3b063f7852f81f82cd0a31afd7f404db4@epcas2p3.samsung.com>
 <2023122701-mortify-deed-4e66@gregkh> <5754861.DvuYhMxLoT@kreacher>
 <6019796.lOV4Wx5bFT@kreacher> <CAJZ5v0j6vspzj00ZH66eHtcDP8_fUcaR+KNoaTA8qG1r0hkrVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZZTk9dRlueSuZuAy@perf>
In-Reply-To: <ZZTk9dRlueSuZuAy@perf>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 11:28:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j=7ePbEhW0+9WBGqgGhafGazyM-APr-ZRsweWDAQ76Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] PM: sleep: Fix possible device suspend-resume deadlocks
To: Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@samsung.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, 
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, d7271.choe@samsung.com, 
	janghyuck.kim@samsung.com, hyesoo.yu@samsung.com, hs.gil@samsung.com, 
	yulgon.kim@samsung.com, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, 
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 5:39=E2=80=AFAM Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@samsung.c=
om> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 02:18:43PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 9:41=E2=80=AFPM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysock=
i.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Everyone,
> > >
> > > As reported here
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/ZYvjiqX6EsL15moe@perf/
> > >
> > > the device suspend-resume code running during system-wide PM transiti=
ons
> > > deadlock on low memory, because it attempts to acquire a mutex that's
> > > already held by it in those cases.
> > >
> > > This series addresses the issue by changing the resume code behavior
> > > to directly run the device PM functions synchronously if they cannot
> > > be scheduled for asynchronous executions (patch [3/3]).
> > >
> > > For this purpose, the async code is rearranged (patch [1/3]) and a
> > > new variant of async_schedule_dev() is introduced (patch [2/3]).
> >
> > Given the lack of negative feedback, I've queued up this series for 6.8=
-rc1.
> >
> > Please let me know if there are any issues with that.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> Hi Rafael
>
> We haven't seen any regression issue under our stress test.
>
> So, feel free to add
>
> Tested-by: Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@samsung.com>

Thank you!