lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [update] Re: [PATCH] PM: Make it possible to avoid wakeup events from being lost
Date
On Wednesday, June 30, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > +/*
> > + * The functions below use the observation that each wakeup event starts a
> > + * period in which the system should not be suspended. The moment this period
> > + * will end depends on how the wakeup event is going to be processed after being
> > + * detected and all of the possible cases can be divided into two distinct
> > + * groups.
> > + *
> > + * First, a wakeup event may be detected by the same functional unit that will
> > + * carry out the entire processing of it and possibly will pass it to user space
> > + * for further processing. In that case the functional unit that has detected
> > + * the event may later "close" the "no suspend" period associated with it
> > + * directly as soon as it has been dealt with. The pair of pm_stay_awake() and
> > + * pm_relax(), balanced with each other, is supposed to be used in such
> > + * situations.
> > + *
> > + * Second, a wakeup event may be detected by one functional unit and processed
> > + * by another one. In that case the unit that has detected it cannot really
> > + * "close" the "no suspend" period associated with it, unless it knows in
> > + * advance what's going to happen to the event during processing. This
> > + * knowledge, however, may not be available to it, so it can simply specify time
> > + * to wait before the system can be suspended and pass it as the second
> > + * argument of pm_wakeup_event().
> > + */
>
> Since there's no longer any way to cancel a call to pm_wakeup_event()
> or close the "no suspend" period early, there is no need to use
> dynamically-allocated delayed_work structures. You can make do with a
> single static timer; always keep it set to expire at the latest time
> passed to pm_wakeup_event().

The decremenations of events_in_progress wouldn't be balanced with
incrementations this way. Or do you have any clever way of dealing with
that in mind?

Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-30 21:31    [W:0.103 / U:2.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site