[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH] PM: Avoid losing wakeup events during suspend

--- On Sun, 6/20/10, David Brownell <> wrote:

... in a sort of "aren't we asking the
wrong questions??" manner ...

I suspect that
looking at the problem in terms of how to
coordinate subsystems (an abstraction which
is at best very ad-hoc today!) we would
end up with a cleaner model, which doesn't
bother so many folk the ay wakelocks or
even suspend blockers seem to bother them...

> From: David Brownell <>
> Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH] PM: Avoid losing wakeup events during suspend
> To:, "Alan Stern" <>
> Cc: "Neil Brown" <>,, "Dmitry Torokhov" <>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <>, "mark gross" <>
> Date: Sunday, June 20, 2010, 9:04 PM
> > > > Indeed, the same problem arises if the
> event
> > isn't delivered to
> > > > userspace until after userspace is frozen.
> Can we put this more directly:  the problem is
> that the *SYSTEM ISN'T FULLY SUSPENDED* when the
> hardware wake event triggers?  (Where "*SYSTEM*
> includes userspace not just kernel.  In fact the
> overall system is built from many subsystems,
> some in the kernel and some in userspace.
> At the risk of being prematurely general:  I'd
> point out that these subsystems probably have
> sequencing requirements.  kernel-then-user is
> a degenerate case, and surely oversimplified.
> There are other examples, e.g. between kernel
> subsystems...  Like needing to suspend a PMIC
> before the bus it uses, where that bus uses
> a task to manage request/response protocols.
> (Think I2C or SPI.)
> This is like the __init/__exit sequencing mess...
> In terms of userspace event delivery, I'd say
> it's a bug in the event mechanism if taking the
> next step in suspension drops any event.  It
> should be queued, not lost...  As a rule the
> hardware queuing works (transparently)...
> > Of course, the underlying
> > > > issue here is that the kernel has no direct
> way
> > to know when userspace
> > > > has finished processing an event.
> Again said more directly:  there's no current
> mechanism to coordinate subsystems.  Userspace
> can't communicate "I'm ready" to kernel, and
> vice versa.  (a few decades ago, APM could do
> that ... we dropped such mechanisms though, and
> I'm fairly sure APM's implementation was holey.)
> _______________________________________________
> linux-pm mailing list

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-21 08:05    [W:0.166 / U:1.324 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site