[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2619760.zM2C8Nu9I9@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:07:52 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Nitish Ambastha <nitish.a@...sung.com>
Cc: pavel@....cz, len.brown@...el.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpgs@...sung.com,
nits.ambastha@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] kernel/power/autosleep.c: check for pm_suspend() return before queueing suspend again
On Monday, June 29, 2015 09:56:18 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 12:24:14 AM Nitish Ambastha wrote:
> > Prevent tight loop for suspend-resume when some
> > devices failed to suspend
> > If some devices failed to suspend, we monitor this
> > error in try_to_suspend(). pm_suspend() is already
> > an 'int' returning function, how about checking return
> > from pm_suspend() before queueing suspend again?
> >
> > For devices which do not register for pending events,
> > this will prevent tight loop for suspend-resume in
> > suspend abort scenarios due to device suspend failures
Having said the below I'm not sure why the current code doesn't cover this
for you?
That would be the final_count == initial_count case, no?
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nitish Ambastha <nitish.a@...sung.com>
> > ---
> > v2: Rearranged code to make wait entry shared with
> > existing one as suggested by Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
> > Corrected log level from pr_info to pr_err for failure log
> > Added return check for hibernate()
> >
> > kernel/power/autosleep.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/power/autosleep.c b/kernel/power/autosleep.c
> > index 9012ecf..1a86698 100644
> > --- a/kernel/power/autosleep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/power/autosleep.c
> > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ static struct wakeup_source *autosleep_ws;
> > static void try_to_suspend(struct work_struct *work)
> > {
> > unsigned int initial_count, final_count;
> > + int error = 0;
>
> The initial value is not needed.
>
> >
> > if (!pm_get_wakeup_count(&initial_count, true))
> > goto out;
> > @@ -43,22 +44,30 @@ static void try_to_suspend(struct work_struct *work)
> > return;
> > }
> > if (autosleep_state >= PM_SUSPEND_MAX)
> > - hibernate();
> > + error = hibernate();
> > else
> > - pm_suspend(autosleep_state);
> > + error = pm_suspend(autosleep_state);
>
> I'd prefer to write that as
>
> error = autosleep_state < PM_SUSPEND_MAX ?
> pm_suspend(autosleep_state) : hibernate();
>
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&autosleep_lock);
> >
> > + if (error) {
> > + pr_err("PM: suspend returned (%d)\n", error);
>
> There is a debug message printed for that in the device suspend code, do we
> need one more here?
>
> > + goto wait;
> > + }
> > +
> > if (!pm_get_wakeup_count(&final_count, false))
> > goto out;
> >
> > + if (final_count != initial_count)
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + wait:
> > /*
> > - * If the wakeup occured for an unknown reason, wait to prevent the
> > - * system from trying to suspend and waking up in a tight loop.
> > + * If some devices failed to suspend or if the wakeup ocurred
> > + * for an unknown reason, wait to prevent the system from
> > + * trying to suspend and waking up in a tight loop.
> > */
> > - if (final_count == initial_count)
> > - schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ / 2);
> > -
> > + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ / 2);
> > out:
> > queue_up_suspend_work();
>
> I'd arrange it this way:
>
> if (error || pm_get_wakeup_count(&final_count, false)
> || final_count == initial_count)
> schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ / 2);
>
> out:
> queue_up_suspend_work();
> > }
> >
>
>
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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