On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 23:18 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > > Since all of the memory hotplug operations have to be carried out > under device_hotplug_lock, they won't need to acquire pm_mutex if > device_hotplug_lock is held around hibernation. > > For this reason, make the hibernation code acquire > device_hotplug_lock after freezing user space processes and > release it before thawing them. At the same tim drop the > lock_system_sleep() and unlock_system_sleep() calls from > lock_memory_hotplug() and unlock_memory_hotplug(), respectively. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > --- > kernel/power/hibernate.c | 4 ++++ > kernel/power/user.c | 2 ++ > mm/memory_hotplug.c | 4 ---- > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-pm/kernel/power/hibernate.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/power/hibernate.c > +++ linux-pm/kernel/power/hibernate.c > @@ -652,6 +652,7 @@ int hibernate(void) > if (error) > goto Exit; > > + lock_device_hotplug();
Since hibernate() can be called from sysfs, do you think the tool may see this as a circular dependency with p_active again? This shouldn't be a problem in practice, though. Thanks, -Toshi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
