Re: [PATCH] PM: suspend_device_irqs(): don't disable wakeup IRQs

From: Kim Kyuwon
Date: Sat May 30 2009 - 03:35:17 EST

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday 25 May 2009, Kim Kyuwon wrote:
>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Saturday 23 May 2009, Kim Kyuwon wrote:
>> >> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>> On Saturday 23 May 2009, Kim Kyuwon wrote:
>> > [--snip--]
>> >>>> You changed the really important part of Linux, which may affect most
>> >>>> processor architectures. I think you should be careful. If some of
>> >>>> architectures can't take care of it (they can implement
>> >>>> disable_irq_wake correctly in H/W level, will you revert your changes?
>> >>> No, the changes are not going to be reverted.  In fact things should have been
>> >>> done like this already much earlier.
>> >>>
>> >>> Now, do you have any particular example of a problem related to these changes
>> >>> or is it only a theoretical issue?
>> >> I'd CCing you when I'm sending a mail for this particular example of a example.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, as I said above, reverting the changes that introduced
>> > [suspend|resume]_device_irqs() is not an option, becuase it was the only sane
>> > way to achieve the goal they were added for.  So, we need to fix the wake-up
>> > problem on your platform with the assumption that
>> > [suspend|resume]_device_irqs() are going to stay.
>> >
>> > For starters, would it be possible to teach the 'disable' hook of your
>> > platform's interrupt controller not to mask the IRQs that have both
>> > IRQ_WAKEUP and IRQ_SUSPENDED set?  That apparently would work around the
>> > wake-up interrupts problem.
>> Thank you for considering this issue and spending your time. In order to
>> make your idea work, we need to add a dummy 'set_wake' hook which
>> returns always zero. Anyway, IMO, I think your idea is good to work
>> around this problem. But Kevin Hilman(OMAP PM Maintainer) would make
>> final decision.
>> Buy the way, how can you handle the problem that a few interrupt are
>> discarded in a small window? I can be sure they are discarded, because I
>> have debugged defects which generate in sleep/resume state hundreds of
>> times on ARM Processors(PXA310, S3C6410, OMAP3430). Wake-up interrupts
>> are generated as soon as arch_suspend_enable_irqs() invoked.
> Sorry for the delayed response.
> If the wake-up interrupts are not masked, they will be delivered to the drivers
> as soon as arch_suspend_enable_irqs() has run.  So, if the drivers are able to
> handle them at this point (ie. before resume_device_irqs() is called), they
> won't be lost.

Thank you for your response!

Your suspend_device_irqs() disables all IRQs(except timer IRQ) while
entering suspend. i.e. Before invoking resume_device_irqs() or
resume_noirq callback, all IRQs(except timer IRQ) is in IRQ_DISABLED
status. Right?
But if an IRQ is in IRQ_DISABLED status, its interrupt handler can be
invoked. (As you know, all IRQs with IRQ_DISABLE are not handled in
handle_level_irq function). Thus, even if the wake-up interrupts are
not masked, the drivers are not able to handle interrupts, because the
interrupt handler can't be invoked due to IRQ_DISABLED set by

> The only problem I see is that the drivers may expect their
> ->resume_noirq() callbacks to be executed first.

resume_noirq() callbacks are also invoked after arch_suspend_enable_irqs().

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at