[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33

    On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > And during phase #1, C and Q won't do anything at all. We _could_ do them
    > during this phase, and it would actually all work out fine, but we
    > wouldn't want to do that for a simple reason: we _want_ the pre_suspend
    > and post_resume phases to be total mirror images, because if we end up
    > doing error handling for the pre-suspend case, then the post-resume phase
    > would be the "fixup" for it, so we actually want leaf things to happen
    > during phase #2 - not because it would screw up locking or ordering, but
    > because of other issues.

    Ho humm.

    This part made me think. Since I started mulling over the fact that we
    could do the resume thing in a single phase (and really only wanted the
    second phase in order to be a mirror image to the suspend), I started
    thinking that we could perhaps do even the suspend with a single phase,
    and avoid introducing that pre-suspend/post-resume phase at all.

    And now that I think about it, we can do that by simply changing the
    locking just a tiny bit.

    I originally envisioned that two-pase suspend because I was thinking that
    the first phase would start off the suspend, and the second phase would
    finish it, but we can actually do it all with a single phase that does
    both. So starting with just the regular depth-first post-ordering that is
    a suspend:


    the rule would be that for something like USB that wants to do the suspend
    asynchronously, the node suspend routine would do

    // Make sure parent doesn't suspend: this will not block,
    // because we'll call the 'suspend' function for all nodes
    // before we call it for the parent.

    // Do the part that may block asynchronously
    async_schedule(do_usb_node_suspend, node);

    // Start out suspend. This will block if we have any
    // children that are still busy suspending (they will
    // have done a down_read() in their suspend).

    // This lets our parent continue

    and it looks like we don't even need a second phase at all.

    IOW, I think USB could do this on its own right now, with no extra
    infrastructure from the device layer AT ALL, except for one small thing:
    that new "rwsem" lock in the device data structure, and then we'd need the
    "wait for everybody to have completed" loop, ie

    for_each_dev(dev) {

    thing at the end of the suspend loop (same thing as I mentioned about

    So I think even that whole two-phase thing was unnecessarily complicated.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-07 17:59    [W:0.025 / U:1.744 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site