[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0707041506020.13486-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 15:07:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM
pathway
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
> > Threads that do no I/O at all don't care about suspend/resume and
> > don't need to be frozen in any case. Threads that issue I/O requests
> > in order to service incoming I/O requests can't be frozen because of
> > the possibility of deadlock. Which leaves threads that do I/O just
> > for the fun of it. :)
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
> Those two threads will try to resume USB devices in response to wakeup
> requests. Such requests arrive during a suspend or resume transition
> more often than one would expect.
>
> If the resume attempt occurs before the host controller has been
> suspended, it will abort the system suspend. If it occurs after the
> host controller is suspended (and before the controller resumes) it
> will fail and try to unregister the USB device -- something else we
> don't like happening while the sytem is only partially up (not to
> mention the annoyance caused by the unregistration of a perfectly
> functional device).
Actually the situation may not be quite this bad any more. It's been a
while since I tried suspending a system without freezing khubd and
ksuspend_usbd. But Miklos's mail shows that problems can and will
occur.
Alan Stern
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists