lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: spinlock in completion_done() (was: Re: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33))
Date
On Wednesday 09 December 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 08 December 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > BTW, is there a good reason why completion_done() doesn't use spin_lock_irqsave
> > > > and spin_unlock_irqrestore? complete() and complete_all() use them, so why not
> > > > here?
> > >
> > > And likewise in try_wait_for_completion(). It looks like a bug. Maybe
> > > these routines were not intended to be called with interrupts disabled,
> > > but that requirement doesn't seem to be documented. And it isn't a
> > > natural requirement anyway.
> >
> > OK, let's ask Ingo about that.
> >
> > Ingo, is there any particular reason why completion_done() and
> > try_wait_for_completion() don't use spin_lock_irqsave() and
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore()?
>
> that's a bug that should be fixed - all the wakeup side (and atomic)
> variants of completetion API should be irq safe.
>
> It appears that these new completion APIs were added via the XFS tree
> about a year ago:
>
> 39d2f1a: [XFS] extend completions to provide XFS object flush requirements
>
> Please Cc: scheduler folks to all scheduler patches.

If you haven't fixed it locally yet, would you mind me posting a fix?

Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-09 23:39    [W:0.404 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site