Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM / sleep: Flag to speed up suspend-resume of runtime-suspended devices

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Thu May 08 2014 - 17:33:48 EST


On Thursday, May 08, 2014 11:42:01 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, May 08, 2014 05:20:43 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 May 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > > Wait a minute. Following ->runtime_suspend(), you are going to call
> > > > > ->suspend() and then ->runtime_resume()? That doesn't seem like what
> > > > > you really want; a ->suspend() call should always have a matching
> > > > > ->resume().
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it should, but I didn't see any other way to do that.
> > >
> > > Actually, that's kind of easy to resolve. :-)
> > >
> > > When ->suspend() leaves power.leave_runtime_suspended set, the PM core can
> > > simply skip the early/late and noirq callbacks and then call ->resume()
> > > that will be responsible for using whatever is necessary to resume the
> > > device.
> > >
> > > And perhaps the flag should be called something different then, like
> > > direct_resume (meaning go directly for ->resume() without executing
> > > the intermediate callbacks)?
> >
> > In light of what I wrote earlier, it should be okay for the ->prepare()
> > callback to be responsible for setting leave_runtime_suspended. Then
> > there will be no need to call either ->suspend() or ->resume().
>
> Hmm. OK, let's try that.

Well, no.

The reason why that doesn't work is because ->prepare() callbacks are
executed in the reverse order, so the perent's ones will be run before
the ->prepare() of the children. Thus if ->prepare() sets the flag
with the expectation that ->suspend() (and the subsequent callbacks)
won't be executed, that expectation may not be met actually.

So I'm going to do what I said above. I prefer it anyway. :-)

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/