lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] lp_events: an lternitive to suspend blocker user mode and kernel API
On Mon, 31 May 2010 08:43:56 +0200
Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 31 May 2010 09:57:53 +1000
> Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
>
> > 2/ Rather than tracking wake-events from the hardware up through possibly
> > several kernel modules, you go directly from hardware to user-space so each
> > event is potentially presented to user-space twice: once as a "wake up
> > from low power state" event and once following the normal path (maybe a
> > key-press event, maybe a serial-port event, maybe a network receive event).
> > I can see that this is a very tempting approach. It allows all those
> > intermediate modules to remain unchanged and that is good.
> > However it isn't clear to me that this would be easy for user-space to use
> > correctly.
> > When an lpe event arrived it would need to wait around for the real event
> > to arrive and then process that. I probably wouldn't wait long, but it
> > would be an indeterminate wait, and it might not be trivial to determine
> > if all events that would cause a wake-up have been consumed as a direct
> > mapping from lpe event to normal event may not always be possible.
> > Maybe this is more of a theoretical problem and in practice it would be
> > easy to get it right - I don't have enough concrete experience to be sure.
> >
> > So: I like the idea of leaving the intermediate layers unchanged, but I'm
> > not convinced it would work.
>
> To add to this: Is it a correct assumption
> that all wake-up events that leave a driver trickle eventually up to
> userspace?
>
> I think splitting the actual driver product (i.e. keypress or whatever)
> of a wake-up-event and it's corresponding wake-lock is not possible.
> Because you would have to _somehow_ map the block back to the product
> when you consume the product.
>
> If you want to abstract the blocking from the kernel-code you probably
> have to introduce an abstract "driver-product" entity where you can do
> all your blocking associated with the product but hidden from the code
> that uses the product. (Which I don't think is feasible, because it
> increases overhead)
>
> Or am I on the wrong track here?

I just realized, that you can cancel lpe_blocks via delete_lpe_block(),
so this is not an issue at all.
They can be used just like suspend blockers.

Also the mapping of lpe_block to "wake event" is the same problem as
with the suspend_blockers...

So I don't think this is a bad idea after all. It decouples the
suspend_blockers from "suspend" quite nicely.
Although it still is only "block" or "no block" and not, as was
suggested some sort of more fine grained requirement definition.

Cheers,
Flo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-31 10:09    [W:0.417 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site