Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753918AbZLSVkJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:40:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753504AbZLSVkG (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:40:06 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:35828 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753902AbZLSVkE (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:40:04 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Alan Stern Subject: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:41:03 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.3 (Linux/2.6.32-rjw; KDE/4.3.3; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Linus Torvalds , Zhang Rui , LKML , ACPI Devel Maling List , pm list References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200912192241.03991.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1587 Lines: 37 On Friday 18 December 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > I didn't manage to do that, but I was able to mark sd and i8042 as async and > > see the impact of this. > > Apparently this didn't do what you wanted. In the nx6325 > sd+i8042+async+extra log, the 0:0:0:0 device (which is a SCSI disk) was > suspended by the main thread instead of an async thread. Hm, that's odd, because there's a noticeable time difference between the two cases in which the sd is sync and async. I'll look into it further. > There's an important point I neglected to mention before. Your logs > don't show anything for devices with no suspend callbacks at all. > Nevertheless, these devices sit on the device list and prevent other > devices from suspending or resuming as soon as they could. Unless they are async, that is. > For example, the fingerprint sensor (3-1) took the most time to resume. > But other devices were delayed until after it finished because it had > children with no callbacks, and they delayed the devices following > them in the list. > > What would happen if you completed these devices immediately, as part > of the first pass? OK. How do the PM core is supposed to check if a device has null suspend and resume? Check all of the function pointers in the first pass? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/