[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1183474086.3722.24.camel@johannes.berg>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:48:06 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to
RAM pathway
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 16:51 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > His proposed solution (freezing tasks when they cross the kernel
> > boundary) helps for the s-t-r case, but in fact doesn't solve (1)
> > because devices can be suspended at runtime
>
> This is a different thing and a different infrastructure is needed for it (not
> present at the moment).
Yeah I should've said "any of his proposed solutions"
> > and then you certainly do not want to freeze tasks that try to access the
> > device.
> >
> > (2) is related but not identical, what if you have a device suspended at
> > runtime and some tasks tries to access it; should the task block until
> > you wake up that device?
>
> I think the device should be woken up in that case.
Ah, but that also means the device has to actually know about it.
> > I think the core of the discussion isn't appreciated by everybody here
> > yet---we need to solve both run-time and suspend-to-ram-time device
> > suspend, not just one of them.
>
> For now, we're discussing the suspend-to-ram-time suspend only, for which
> we have (some) infrastrcuture (and which should be supported by all drivers,
> IMO).
Right but if we solve the run-time suspend case in favour of having the
device driver know about it then the suspend-to-ram-time suspend case
solves itself.
johannes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (191 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists