[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZcOyW_Q1FC35oxob@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 06:39:55 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@...ux.intel.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Naohiro.Aota@....com,
kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PM: sleep: Restore asynchronous device resume
optimization
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 12:25:46PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The other one is that what happens during async resume does not meet
> the assumptions of commit 5797b1c18919 (for example, it can easily
> produce a chain of interdependent work items longer than 8) and so it
> breaks things.
Ah, that's fascinating. But aren't CPUs all brought up online before devices
are resumed? If so, the max_active should already be way higher than the
WQ_DFL_MIN_ACTIVE. Also, are these multi node NUMA machines? Otherwise, it
really shouldn't affect anything. One easy way to verify would be just
bumping up WQ_DFL_MIN_ACTIVE and see what happens.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists