From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Need lockdep help
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:04:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071202120411.2aac7720@laptopd505.fenrus.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0712021430140.4185-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:45:32 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Ingo:
>
> I ran into a lockdep reporting issue just now with some new code
> under development. I think it's a false positive; the question is
> how best to deal with it.
>
> Here's the situation. The new code runs during a system sleep (i.e.,
> suspend or hibernation). Certain activities have to be deferred
> during a system sleep, so I defined an rwsem:
> system_sleep_in_progress_rwsem.
>
> Subroutines carrying out these activities acquire a read lock on the
> rwsem, so normally they proceed with no hindrance. During a sleep
> transition, I acquire a write lock -- this is done via a PM-notifier
> callout routine. That is, during a PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE or
> PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE notification the routine does down_write(), and
> during a PM_POST_HIBERNATION or PM_POST_SUSPEND notification the
> routine does up_write().
>
> The problem is that the notifier chain itself is under the control of
> an rwsem (to prevent the chain from being modified while it is in
> use). The resulting actions look like this:
>
> System sleep start:
> down_read(notifier-chain rwsem);
> call the notifier routine
> down_write(&system_sleep_in_progress_rwsem);
> up_read(notifier-chain rwsem);
>
> System sleep end:
> down_read(notifier-chain rwsem);
> call the notifier routine
> up_write(&system_sleep_in_progress_rwsem);
> up_read(notifier-chain rwsem);
>
> This creates a lockdep violation; each rwsem in turn is locked while
> the other is being held. However the only way this could lead to
> deadlock would be if there was already a bug in the system Power
> Management code (overlapping notifications).
or.. modifications to the notifier chain while all this is happening
(remember: rwsems are fair, once a writer shows up, all readers wait)
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-02 20:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-02 19:45 Alan Stern
2007-12-02 20:04 ` Arjan van de Ven [this message]
2007-12-02 20:08 ` Alan Stern
2007-12-03 10:36 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-12-03 15:08 ` Alan Stern
2007-12-03 23:25 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-12-04 15:17 ` Alan Stern
2007-12-04 19:02 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-12-04 19:28 ` Alan Stern
2007-12-04 20:14 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-12-04 21:00 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071202120411.2aac7720@laptopd505.fenrus.org \
--to=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®