[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200906110107.23023.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:07:22 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch update] Re: [linux-pm] Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code)
Am Donnerstag, 11. Juni 2009 00:01:20 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> We have queued up resume requests for the device's parent, its parent etc.,
> the topmost one goes first. The workqueue is singlethread, so
> pm_autoresume() is going to be run for all parents before the device
> itself, so if that were the only resume mechanism, it would be enough to
> check if the parent is RPM_ACTIVE.
A (IDLE)
/ \
B (SUSPENDED) C (SUSPENDED)
Suppose C is to be resumed. This means first in case of A the request
to suspend would be cancelled. Here you drop the locks:
+ && (dev->parent->power.runtime_status == RPM_IDLE
+ || dev->parent->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDING
+ || dev->parent->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDED)) {
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->power.lock, flags);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->parent->power.lock, parent_flags);
+
+ /* We have to resume the parent first. */
+ pm_request_resume(dev->parent);
But after pm_request_resume() returns there's no means to make sure
nothing alters it back to RPM_SUSPENDED. The workqueue doesn't help
you because you've scheduled nothing by that time. The suspension will
work because C is still in RPM_SUSPENDED.
Regards
Oliver
--
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