[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: suspend blockers & Android integration
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> Note that this does not necessarily have to be implemented as 'execute suspend
> from the idle task' code: scheduling from the idle task, while can certainly
> be made to work, is a somewhat recursive concept that we might want to avoid
> for robustness reasons.
> Instead, the 'deepest idle' (suspend) method could consist of a wakeup of a
> kernel thread (or of any of the existing kernel threads such as the migration
> thread) - which kernel thread then does a race-free suspend: it offlines all
> but one CPU [on platforms that need that] and then initiates the suspend - but
> aborts the attempt if there's any sign of wakeup activity.

Out of morbid curiosity... A typical sign of wakeup activity is a
thread becoming runnable because of expiration of a kernel timer or an
I/O completion interrupt. How would the "race-free suspend" thread
detect this sort of thing? Indeed, isn't the inability to detect these
part of what makes the existing suspend implementation (the freezer in
particular) not race-free?

Alan Stern

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-04 16:53    [W:0.244 / U:61.436 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site