[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33)
On Tuesday 08 December 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Suppose we use rwsem and during suspend each child uses a down_read() on a
> > parent and then the parent uses down_write() on itself. What if, whatever the
> > reason, the parent is a bit early and does the down_write() before one of the
> > children has a chance to do the down_read()? Aren't we toast?
> >
> > Do we need any direct protection against that or does it just work itself out
> > in a way I just don't see right now?
> 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.
> 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. 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.
> This is a little more awkward because it requires the parent to iterate
> through its children.

I can live with that.

> But it does solve the off-tree dependency problem for suspends.

That's a plus, but I still think we're trying to create a barrier-alike
mechanism using lock.

There's one more possibility to consider, though. What if we use a completion
instead of the flag + wait queue? It surely is a standard synchronization
mechanism and it seems it might work here.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-08 21:33    [W:0.184 / U:3.052 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site