lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: suspend regression in 4.1-rc1
On Mon 18-05-15 10:26:07, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 06:56:46AM -0400, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
> >
> > > There further appears to be a distinct lack of serialization between
> > > setting and using watchdog_enabled, so perhaps we should wrap the
> > > {en,dis}able_all() things in watchdog_proc_mutex.
> >
> > As I understand it, the {en,dis}able_all() functions are only called early
> > at kernel startup, so I do not see how they could be racing with watchdog
> > code that is executed in the context of write() system calls to parameters
> > in /proc/sys/kernel. Please see also my earlier reply to Michal for further
> > details: http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=143194387208250&w=2
> >
> > Do we really need synchronization here?
>
> As Peter said we have to focus on doing things correctly and not based on
> what is currently.
>
> During s2ram, I believe all the threads get parked and then unparked during
> resume. I am wondering if the race happens there, threads get unparked and
> stomp on each other when watchdog_nmi_enable_all() is called.

Wouldn't that cause an issue during freezer mode of pm_test? I can see
it much later in the processors mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-18 17:21    [W:0.118 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site