[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0903071143340.5732-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 11:51:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<Arve@...p1.linux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH][1/8] PM: Rework handling of interrupts
during suspend-resume (rev. 5)
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
>
> Introduce two helper functions allowing us to prevent device drivers
> from getting any interrupts (without disabling interrupts on the CPU)
> during suspend (or hibernation) and to make them start to receive
> interrupts again during the subsequent resume, respectively. These
> functions make it possible to keep timer interrupts enabled while the
> "late" suspend and "early" resume callbacks provided by device
> drivers are being executed.
>
> Use these functions to rework the handling of interrupts during
> suspend (hibernation) and resume. Namely, interrupts will only be
> disabled on the CPU right before suspending sysdevs, while device
> drivers will be prevented from receiving interrupts, with the help of
> the new helper function, before their "late" suspend callbacks run
> (and analogously during resume).
>
> In addition, since the device interrups are now disabled before the
> CPU has turned all interrupts off and the CPU will ACK the interrupts
> setting the IRQ_PENDING bit for them, check in sysdev_suspend() if
> any wake-up interrupts are pending and abort suspend if that's the
> case.
One thing about this isn't clear: the distinction between "wake-up"
interrupts and other interrupts.
In an ideal world, the only pending interrupts during sysdev_suspend
would be wake-up interrupts, because drivers would have prevented their
devices from generating any other kind of IRQ and would have done all
the necessary synchronization as part of their suspend (_not_
suspend_late) methods. Thus there would be no need to distinguish
between wake-up and non-wake-up interrupts.
So perhaps you're worried about drivers that aren't sufficiently
clever. Or is something deeper going on?
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