[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161110213038.GA108490@google.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:30:39 -0800
From: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / wakeirq: report wakeup events in dedicated wake-IRQs
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:49:11PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> [161110 11:49]:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:13:55AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > > It's important that user space can figure out what device woke the
> > > > system from suspend -- e.g., for debugging, or for implementing
> > > > conditional wake behavior. Dedicated wakeup IRQs don't currently do
> > > > that.
> > > >
> > > > Let's report the event (pm_wakeup_event()) and also allow drivers to
> > > > synchronize with these events in their resume path (hence, disable_irq()
> > > > instead of disable_irq_nosync()).
> > >
> > > Hmm, dev_pm_disable_wake_irq() is called from
> > > rpm_suspend()/rpm_resume() that take dev->power.lock spinlock and
> > > disable interrupts. Dropping _nosync() feels dangerous.
> >
> > Indeed. So how do you suggest we get sane wakeup reports?
>
> __pm_wakeup_event() ?
That's not the difficult part. (This patch already uses
pm_wakeup_event() correctly. It's in the ISR, and it doesn't get nested
within any other lock-holding code, so it should use the non-underscore
version, which grabs the lock.)
The difficult part is guaranteeing that the wake IRQ gets reported at
the appropriate time. It seems highly unlikely that a threaded IRQ like
this would take longer than the time for devices to resume, but it's not
guaranteed. So the question is where/when/how we call synchronize_irq().
Brian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists