[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201102101726.30725.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:26:30 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>,
Brendan Cully <brendan@...ubc.ca>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"SUZUKI, Kazuhiro" <kaz@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/2] Fix hangup after creating checkpoint on Xen.
On Thursday, February 10, 2011, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 23:42 +0000, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > In fact there already is a "fast suspend & resume" path in the PM core.
> > > It's the freeze/thaw procedure used when starting to hibernate. The
> > > documentation specifically says that drivers' freeze methods are
> > > supposed to quiesce their devices but not change power levels. In
> > > addition, the thaw method is invoked as part of recovery from a failed
> > > hibernation attempt, so it already has the "cancel" semantics that xen
> > > seems to want.
> >
> > Sounds like that would work and I would much prefer to simply make
> > correct use of the core functionality.
>
> It seems like a reasonable approach. Whether it will actually _work_
> is a harder question... :-)
>
> > So PMSG_FREEZE is balanced by either PMSG_RECOVER or PMSG_THAW depending
> > on whether the suspend was cancelled or not?
That's correct, but from drivers' point of view PMSG_THAW is equivalent to
PMSG_RECOVER, because the both of them cause ->thaw() callbacks to be executed.
> Basically yes. It is also "balanced" by PMSG_RESTORE, which is used
> after a memory image has been restored (although this isn't relevant to
> your snapshotting). See the comments in include/linux/pm.h.
Yup.
> > So the sequence of events
> > is something like:
> > dpm_suspend_start(PMSG_FREEZE);
> >
> > dpm_suspend_noirq(PMSG_FREEZE);
> >
> > sysdev_suspend(PMSG_QUIESCE);
>
> This should say sysdev_suspend(PMSG_FREEZE).
Yes, PMSG_QUIESCE is restore-specific.
> > cancelled = suspend_hypercall()
>
> At this point swsusp_arch_suspend() is called. If that translates to
> suspend_hypercall() in your setting, then yes.
>
> > sysdev_resume();
> >
> > dpm_resume_noirq(cancelled ? PMSG_RECOVER : PMSG_THAW);
> >
> > dpm_resume_end(cancelled ? PMSG_RECOVER : PMSG_THAW);
> > ?
>
> Yes.
Actually, I think PMSG_THAW can be used in both cases. The resume-side
routines only use the 'state' argument for diagnostics.
> > (For comparison we currently have:
> > > > > dpm_suspend_start(PMSG_SUSPEND);
> > > > >
> > > > > dpm_suspend_noirq(PMSG_SUSPEND);
> > > > >
> > > > > sysdev_suspend(PMSG_SUSPEND);
> > > > > /* suspend hypercall */
> > > > > sysdev_resume();
> > > > >
> > > > > dpm_resume_noirq(PMSG_RESUME);
> > > > >
> > > > > dpm_resume_end(PMSG_RESUME);
> > )
>
> Right. The sequence of calls is the same, but the PMSG_ argument is
> different so drivers are expected to act differently in response.
That's correct.
Thanks,
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