Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

[Florian Mickler]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:25:27 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 19:21 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:45:25 +0200 (CEST)
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > The whole notion of treating suspend to RAM any different than a plain
> > > idle C-State is wrong. It's not different at all. You just use a
> > > different mechanism which has longer takedown and wakeup latencies and
> > > requires to shut down stuff and setup extra wakeup sources.
> > > 
> > > And there is the whole problem. Switching from normal event delivery
> > > to those special wakeup sources. That needs to be engineered in any
> > > case carefuly and it does not matter whether you add suspend blockers
> > > or not.
> > 
> > Ok, I just don't know the answer: How is it just another idle state if
> > the userspace gets frozen? Doesn't that bork the whole transition and
> > you need a userspace<->kernel synchronisation point to not loose events?
> 
> There is no userspace to freeze when the runqueues are empty.

If in the imaginery situation where userspace can aquire certain
wakeup-constraints and loose certain wakeup-constraints, then it could
be that the system enters suspend without empty runqueues. 

> And as explained, you won't loose events if all the devices do a proper
> state transition. To quote:

I believe the problem beeing userspace frozen at an unopportune time.
So the wakeup event is processed (kernel-side) but userspace didn't
have time to reacquire the correct wakeup-constraint to process the
event.

I.e. the wakeup will be effectivly ignored.


Cheers,
Flo
--
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/