Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, August 06, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
...
> But what sorts of things qualify as wakeup events?  Right now, the code
> handles only events coming by way of the PME# signal (or its platform
> equivalent).  But that signal usually gets activated only when a PCI
> device is in a low-power mode; if the device is at full power then it
> simply generates an IRQ.  It's the same event, but reported to the
> kernel in a different way.  So consider...
> 
> Case 1: The system is suspending and the PCI device has already been
> 	placed in D3hot when an event occurs.  PME# is activated,
> 	the wakeup event is reported, the suspend is aborted, and the 
> 	system won't try to suspend again for at least 100 ms.  Good.
> 
> Case 2: The system is running normally and the PCI device is at full
> 	power when an event occurs.  PME# isn't activated and 
> 	pm_wakeup_event doesn't get called.  Then when the system
> 	tries to suspend 25 ms later, there's nothing to prevent it
> 	even though the event is still being processed.  Bad.
> 
> In case 2 the race has not been resolved.  It seems to me that the 
> only proper solution is to call pm_wakeup_event for _every_ PCI 
> interrupt.  This may be too much to add to a hot path, but what's the 
> alternative?

Arguably not every PCI interrupt should be regarded as a wakeup event, so
I think we can simply say in the cases when that's necessary the driver should
be responsible for using pm_wakeup_event() or pm_stay_awake() / pm_relax() as
appropriate.

My patch only added it to the bus-level code which covered the PME-based
wakeup events that _cannot_ be handled by device drivers.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/