* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 09 December 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> 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? I wouldnt mind it at all. Thanks, Ingo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
