[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912121049390.3526@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:54:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async
suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> I'd like to put it into my tree in this form, if you don't mind.
This version still has a major problem, which is not related to
completions vs rwsems, but simply to the fact that you wanted to do this
at the generic device layer level rather than do it at the actual
low-level suspend/resume level.
Namely that there's no apparent sane way to say "don't wait for children".
PCI bridges that don't suspend at all - or any other device that only
suspends in the 'suspend_late()' thing, for that matter - don't have any
reason what-so-ever to wait for children, since they aren't actually
suspending in the first place. But you make them wait regardless, which
then serializes things unnecessarily (for example, two unrelated USB
controllers).
And no, making _everything_ be async is _not_ the answer.
Linus
--
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