[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1006251654470.1322-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:57:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, mark gross <640e9920@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [update 2] Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Avoid losing wakeup events during
suspend
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > You seem to be referring to the PM workqueue specifically. Perhaps it would be
> > > better to special-case it and stop it by adding a barrier work during suspend
> > > instead of just freezing? Then, it wouldn't need to be singlethread any more.
> >
> > The barrier work would have to be queued to each CPU's thread. That
> > would be okay.
>
> I guess we should stop the PM workqueue after the freezing of tasks, shouldn't we?
Yes. The exact spot probably doesn't matter; that's as good as any.
> > Hmm, it looks like wait_event_freezable() and
> > wait_event_freezable_timeout() could use similar changes: If the
> > condition is true then they shouldn't try to freeze the caller.
>
> Yes, but that should be a separate patch IMHO.
Agreed.
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