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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans