Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: Enable wakeup_sources for mmc core
From: Ulf Hansson
Date: Tue Jun 18 2013 - 09:17:21 EST
On 17 June 2013 20:33, Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 14 June 2013 22:52, Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Zoran Markovic
>>> <zoran.markovic@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> I am not sure I understand why this patch is needed. When a new card
>>>>> is inserted/removed and the upper levels gets notification about the
>>>>> new card, triggering the mounting/un-mounting of the file system, why
>>>>> should it be the lowest layer (mmc) that prevents the platform from
>>>>> enter suspend/sleep? Why do we need to prevent it at all?
>>>>> Note that notifier handling in mmc_pm_notify, was if I remember
>>>>> correctly, not completely developed when the original version of this
>>>>> patch was being discussed. mmc_pm_notify prevents cards from being
>>>>> inserted/removed in the middle of suspend->resume sequence, is that
>>>>> not enough?
>>>> I will try to speak on behalf of the original implementers in a hope
>>>> they would provide the original motivation for the patch.
>>>> My understanding is that any preemption in the procedure could be an
>>>> opportunity to suspend, as there may be a suspend request racing with
>>>> this code. This is why the calls to __pm_stay_awake() and
>>>> queue_delayed_work() are so tightly coupled. It would be up to the
>>>> delayed work procedure (mmc_rescan()) to decide whether or not it is
>>>> safe to suspend. If there are no changes in the MMC state or all
>>>> changes can be handled by mmc_rescan(), it is safe to call
>>>> __pm_relax(). Otherwise, userland may take over processing of this
>>>> event, and this is why the awake state needs to be extended by 1/2
>>> The __pm_stay_awake() is required to prevent autosleep during the time
>>> between the card detect interrupt and when the userspace process that
>>> gets the notification runs. The 1/2 second delay is used because it
>>> is easier than trying to detect when the userspace process has
>>> received the notification, at which time it should hold its own
>>> wakelock and the mmc subsystem can call __pm_relax().
>> Hi Colin,
>> I don't have the in-depth knowledge about how the userspace deamons
>> handles the event notifications, so please bare with me while I am
>> trying to understand more here.
>> First of all, are we trying to solve an issue here or just improving
>> some specific situation, that is not clear to me.
>> I might have misunderstood this patch, but it seems like your concern
>> is that you believe the event notification can get lost - if userspace
>> are about to trigger a suspend while a card is being inserted/removed.
>> If that is the case, could you elaborate on what level the
>> notification can get lost?
>> Kind regards
>> Ulf Hansson
> This is a generic requirement for using a kernel with autosleep
> enabled. Autosleep will enter suspend whenever there is no wakeup
> source/wakelock held. Consider the following sequence:
> Kernel is suspended
> Card is inserted, triggering a wakeup interrupt, which is an implicit
> wakeup source until it is handled
I don't think a card insert/remove irq need to be configured as a
wakeup interrupt. As you say, it will force a resume to detect the
card, but for what reason?
Instead, I think it it better to leave the card detection to be
handled at the next resume, thus not resuming the system when not
> Kernel starts resuming, resumes the mmc driver
> The mmc driver enables its interrupt, which is immediately handled and
> queues an event to be handled by userspace
> At this point the wakeup interrupt is handled and gone, and no wakeup
> sources are being held, so the kernel can choose to go back to
> suspend, so userspace can't handle the insertion event until the
> kernel wakes up for another reason.
Is this a problem? From my point of view it should be perfectly
acceptable to let userspace handle the event at the next resume/wakeup
instead. Don't you think so?
> In general, an event that is triggered by a wakeup interrupt that is
> being passed from the kernel to userspace needs to have a wakeup
> source held while the event is queued.
That's sounds reasonable. Would it then make sense to hold a generic
wakeup source in the "suspend/resume core", once a wakeup interrupt is
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/