[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [linux-pm] Fundamental flaw in system suspend, exposed by freezer removal
On Monday, 25 of February 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> > The only possible solution is to have the drivers themselves be
> > responsible for preventing calls to device_add() or device_register()
> > during a system sleep. (It's also necessary to prevent driver binding,
> > but this isn't a major issue.) The most straightforward approach is to
> > add a new pair of driver methods: one to disable adding children and
> > one to re-enable it. Of course this would represent a significant
> > addition to the Power Management driver interface.
> >
> > (Note that the existing suspend and resume methods cannot be used for
> > this purpose. Drivers assume that when the suspend method is called,
> > it has already been called for all the child devices. This wouldn't be
> > true if one of the purposes of the method was to prevent addition of
> > new children.)
> On further thought maybe the existing methods can be used, with care.
> Drivers would have to assume the responsibility of synchronizing with
> their helper threads and stopping addition of new children (something
> they should already be doing), and they would also have to check that
> all the existing children are already suspended. They should not make
> the assumption that the PM core has already suspended all the children.

IMO the device driver should assure that no new children will be registered
concurrently with the ->suspend() method (IOW, ->suspend() should wait for
all such registrations to complete and should prevent any new ones from
being started) and it should make it impossible to register any new children
after ->suspend() has run. It's the driver's problem how to achieve that.

> The PM core could help detect errors here. If it tries to suspend a
> device and sees that the device's parent is already suspended, then the
> parent's driver has a bug.

Yes, I think we ought to fail the suspend in such cases. Still, that's not
sufficient to prevent a child from being registered after we've run
dpm_suspend(). For this reason, we could also leave dpm_suspend() with
dpm_list_mtx held and not release it until the next dpm_resume() is run.

That will potentially cause some trouble to CPU hotplug cotifiers, but we can
handle that, for example, by using the in_suspend_context() test.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-25 23:29    [W:0.102 / U:0.948 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site