PM / reboot: Eliminate race between reboot and suspend

At present, "systemctl suspend" and "shutdown" can run in parrallel. A
system can suspend after devices_shutdown(), and resume. Then the shutdown
task goes on to power off. This causes many devices are not really shut
off. Hence replacing reboot_mutex with system_transition_mutex (renamed
from pm_mutex) to achieve the exclusion. The renaming of pm_mutex as
system_transition_mutex can be better to reflect the purpose of the mutex.

Signed-off-by: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt b/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt
index af005770e767..cd283190855a 100644
--- a/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt
+++ b/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt
@@ -204,26 +204,26 @@ VI. Are there any precautions to be taken to prevent freezing failures?
 
 Yes, there are.
 
-First of all, grabbing the 'pm_mutex' lock to mutually exclude a piece of code
+First of all, grabbing the 'system_transition_mutex' lock to mutually exclude a piece of code
 from system-wide sleep such as suspend/hibernation is not encouraged.
 If possible, that piece of code must instead hook onto the suspend/hibernation
 notifiers to achieve mutual exclusion. Look at the CPU-Hotplug code
 (kernel/cpu.c) for an example.
 
-However, if that is not feasible, and grabbing 'pm_mutex' is deemed necessary,
-it is strongly discouraged to directly call mutex_[un]lock(&pm_mutex) since
+However, if that is not feasible, and grabbing 'system_transition_mutex' is deemed necessary,
+it is strongly discouraged to directly call mutex_[un]lock(&system_transition_mutex) since
 that could lead to freezing failures, because if the suspend/hibernate code
-successfully acquired the 'pm_mutex' lock, and hence that other entity failed
+successfully acquired the 'system_transition_mutex' lock, and hence that other entity failed
 to acquire the lock, then that task would get blocked in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
 state. As a consequence, the freezer would not be able to freeze that task,
 leading to freezing failure.
 
 However, the [un]lock_system_sleep() APIs are safe to use in this scenario,
 since they ask the freezer to skip freezing this task, since it is anyway
-"frozen enough" as it is blocked on 'pm_mutex', which will be released
+"frozen enough" as it is blocked on 'system_transition_mutex', which will be released
 only after the entire suspend/hibernation sequence is complete.
 So, to summarize, use [un]lock_system_sleep() instead of directly using
-mutex_[un]lock(&pm_mutex). That would prevent freezing failures.
+mutex_[un]lock(&system_transition_mutex). That would prevent freezing failures.
 
 V. Miscellaneous
 /sys/power/pm_freeze_timeout controls how long it will cost at most to freeze