On Wednesday, 7 of May 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 11:41:50AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > @@ -182,6 +183,8 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, > > > /* didnt get the lock, go to sleep: */ > > > spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags); > > > schedule(); > > > + if (state == TASK_KILLABLE) > > > + try_to_freeze(); > > > spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags); > > > } > > > > > > > I'm not comfortable with this one. Can the task be killable, but still > > hold some _other_ mutex? (and then release it only if it actually gets > > the signal?) > > Yes, that's exactly what's supposed to happen. The question, though, is whether there is a driver that will try to lock this mutex in its .suspend() or .resume() callback. If there is one, TASK_KILLABLE won't help the freezer indeed. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
