Re: Towards eliminating the freezer

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, 24 July 2007 22:24, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > Hmm, I still don't understand why we can't lock dpm_list_mutex before the
> > "For each" loop (we already do something like this in device_suspend() and
> > device_resume()) and that would simplify things.
> > 
> > It seems that we can do something like this:
> > 
> > device_suspend:
> > 	Lock dpm_list_mutex (from now on, new devices cannot be added)
> > 	For each device on dpm_active, reverse
> > 		acquire dev->sem (from now on, no new drivers can bind to dev)
> > 		suspend(dev)
> > 		move dev to dpm_off
> 
> You have a minor error there; it's necessary to unlock dpm_list_mutex 
> while acquiring dev-sem and then lock it again.

Ah, right, now I see that.

> But more importantly, this code acquires the device semaphores in the wrong
> order.  They have to be acquired going forward (from the top of the device
> tree down), not backward.

Yes, I've overlooked that too.

> Here's my proposal in a more explicit form.  Before doing
> device_suspend() we call lock_all_devices():
> 
> struct list_head dpm_locked;
> 
> static void lock_all_devices()
> {
> 	mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> 	while (!list_empty(&dpm_active)) {
> 		struct list_head *entry = dpm_active.next;
> 		struct device *dev = to_device(entry);
> 
> 		get_device(dev);
> 		mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> 		down(&dev->sem);
> 		mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> 
> 		if (list_empty(entry))		/* Device was removed */
> 			up(&dev->sem);
> 		else			/* Move it to the dpm_locked list */
> 			list_move_tail(entry, &dpm_locked);
> 		put_device(dev);
> 	}
> }
> 
> Then device_suspend() can be simplified:
> 
> int device_suspend(pm_message_t state)
> {
> 	int error = 0;
> 
> 	might_sleep();
> 	list_for_each_entry_reverse(dev, &dpm_locked, power.entry) {
> 		error = suspend_device(dev, state);
> 
> 		if (error) {
> 			printk(KERN_ERR "Could not suspend device %s: "
> 				"error %d%s\n",
> 				kobject_name(&dev->kobj), error,
> 				error == -EAGAIN ? " (please convert to suspend_late)" : "");
> 			break;
> 		}
> 		list_move(&dev->power.entry, &dpm_off);

Is that safe with list_for_each_entry_reverse?

> 	}
> 	if (error)
> 		dpm_resume();
> 	return error;
> }
> 
> Appropriate changes are needed in the resume pathway as well, together 
> with an unlock_all_devices() routine:

Sure.

> static void unlock_all_devices(void)
> {
> 	while (!list_empty(&dpm_locked)) {
> 		struct list_head *entry = dpm_locked.prev;
> 		struct device *dev = to_device(entry);
> 
> 		list_move(entry, &dpm_active);
> 		up(&dev->sem);
> 	}
> 	mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> }

Yes, that looks fine. 

So, who's writing the patch? ;-)

> Incidentally, what is dpm_mtx for?  It doesn't seem to do anything 
> useful.  Is it a relic of the former runtime PM support?

I think so.  IMO it can be removed.

I also think it would be nicer to have all of the functions in
drivers/base/power/{main|suspend|resume}.c moved to one file.

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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/