[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0912151047410.3566-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:55:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, 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 Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> My whole point was that by doing the whole "wait for children" in generic
> code, you also made devices - such as PCI bridges - have to wait for
> children, even though they don't need to, and don't want to.
>
> So I suggested an admittedly ugly hack to take care of it - rather than
> some complex infrastructure.
It doesn't feel like an ugly hack to me. It seems like exactly the
Right Thing To Do: Make as many devices as possible use async
suspend/resume.
The only reason we don't make every device async is because we don't
know whether it's safe. In the case of PCI bridges we _do_ know --
because they don't have any work to do outside of
late_suspend/early_resume -- and so they _should_ be async.
The same goes for devices that don't have suspend or resume methods.
There remains a separate question: Should async devices also be forced
to wait for their children? I don't see why not. For PCI bridges it
won't make any significant difference. As long as the async code
doesn't have to do anything, who cares when it runs?
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