lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] PM / Runtime: Do not run callbacks under lock for power.irq_safe set
    Date
    On Monday, September 12, 2011, Ming Lei wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
    > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
    > >
    > > The rpm_suspend() and rpm_resume() routines execute subsystem or PM
    > > domain callbacks under power.lock if power.irq_safe is set for the
    > > given device. This is inconsistent with that rpm_idle() does after
    > > commit 02b2677 (PM / Runtime: Allow _put_sync() from
    > > interrupts-disabled context) and is problematic for subsystems and PM
    > > domains wanting to use power.lock for synchronization in their
    > > runtime PM callbacks. For this reason, make runtime PM core functions
    > > always release power.lock before invoking subsystem or PM domain
    >
    > If power.lock is released, the transition states(resuming or suspending)
    > may be observed in rpm_suspend or rpm_resume, then tasks schedule
    > will be produced in these two functions,

    I don't think so, because the interrupts are still off.

    > so the functions below can't be
    >
    > pm_runtime_suspend()
    > pm_runtime_autosuspend()
    > pm_runtime_resume()
    > pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend()
    > pm_runtime_put_sync_autosuspend()
    >
    > called in irq-off contexts safely even though irq_safe flag is set.

    The patch doesn't cause rpm_suspend() and rpm_resume() to turn interrupts
    on if irq_safe is set, it only causes them to release the lock (temporarily).

    Thanks,
    Rafael


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-09-12 23:53    [W:0.020 / U:1.888 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site