[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1405131110480.1098-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:12:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] PM / sleep: Mechanism to avoid resuming
runtime-suspended devices unnecessarily
On Tue, 13 May 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > + dev->power.direct_complete = ret > 0 && state.event == PM_EVENT_SUSPEND
> > > + && pm_runtime_suspended(dev);
> >
> > Shouldn't the flag be set under the spinlock?
>
> I guess you're worried about runtime PM flags being modified in parallel to
> this? But we've just done the barrier a while ago, so is that still a concern
> here?
A wakeup request from the hardware could cause a runtime resume to
occur at this time. The barrier wouldn't prevent that.
It's unlikely, I agree, but not impossible.
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