lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33)


On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> That's not the way it should be done. Linus had children taking their
> parents' locks during suspend, which is simple but leads to
> difficulties.

No it doesn't. Name them.

> Instead, the PM core should do a down_write() on each device before
> starting the device's async suspend routine, and an up_write() when the
> routine finishes.

No you should NOT do that. If you do that, you serialize the suspend
incorrectly and much too early. IOW, think a topology like this:

a -> b -> c
\
> d -> e
where you'd want to suspend 'c' and 'e' asynchronously. If we do a
'down-write()' on b, then we'll delay until 'c' has suspended, an if we
have ordered the nodes in the obvious depth-first order, we'll walk the PM
device list in the order:

c b e d a

and now we'll serialize on 'b', waiting for 'c' to suspend. Which we do
_not_ want to do, because the whole point was to suspend 'c' and 'e'
together.

> Parents should, at the start of their async routine,
> do down_read() on each of their children plus whatever other devices
> they need to wait for. The core can do the waiting for children part
> and the driver's suspend routine can handle any other waiting.

Why?

That just complicates things. Compare to my simple locking scheme I've
quoted several times.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-08 22:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans