[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201005270047.19167.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 00:47:19 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
"Linux-pm mailing list" <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...onice.net>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.
On Thursday 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > The reason is simple: When a user process initiates an opportunistic
> > > suspend, you make it wait in an interruptible sleep until all the
> > > kernel suspend blockers are released. No polling. If another user
> > > thread decides in the meantime that it needs to block the suspend, it
> > > sends a signal to the power manager process.
> > >
> > > In fact, other threads should signal the power manager process whenever
> > > they want to block or unblock suspends. That way the power manager
> > > process can spend all its time sleeping, without doing any polling.
> >
> > I still see an issue here. Namely, if the power manager is in user space and
> > it's signaled to suspend, it has to ask the kernel to do that, presumably by
> > writing something to a sysfs file. Then, if the kernel blocks the suspend, the
> > power manager waits until the block is released. Now, it should go back and
> > check if user space still doesn't block suspend and if so, wait until the block
> > is released and start over. With all suspend blockers in the kernel this
> > looping behavior is avoidable.
>
> I must be missing something. In Arve's patch 1/8, if the system is in
> opportunistic suspend, and a wakeup event occurs but no suspend
> blockers get enabled by the handler, what causes the system to go back
> into suspend after the event is handled? Isn't that a loop of some
> sort?
Well, yes it is.
Rafael
--
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