Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756231Ab0FAMSI (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:18:08 -0400 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:48672 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756215Ab0FAMSE (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:18:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 14:17:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Arve_Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Florian Mickler , Matthew Garrett , Alan Stern , Peter Zijlstra , Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, LKML , felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <201005302202.39511.rjw@sisk.pl> <201005312347.24251.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-1710233220-1275394626=:2933" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1987 Lines: 46 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-1710233220-1275394626=:2933 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Mon, 31 May 2010, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote: > 2010/5/31 Rafael J. Wysocki : > > On Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote: > >> 2010/5/30 Rafael J. Wysocki : > > ... > >> > >> I think it makes more sense to block suspend while wakeup events are > >> pending than blocking it everywhere timers are used by code that could > >> be called while handling wakeup events or other critical work. Also, > >> even if you did block suspend everywhere timers where used you still > >> have the race where a wakeup interrupt happens right after you decided > >> to suspend. In other words, you still need to block suspend in all the > >> same places as with the current opportunistic suspend code, so what is > >> the benefit of delaying suspend until idle? > > > > Assume for a while that you don't use suspend blockers, OK? ?I realize you > > think that anything else doesn't make sense, but evidently some other people > > have that opinion about suspend blockers. > > > > It sounded like you were suggesting that initiating suspend from idle > would somehow avoid the race condition with wakeup events. All I'm > saying is that you would need to block suspend in all the same places. > If you don't care about ignoring wakeup events, then sure you can > initiate suspend from idle. And why should you miss a wakeup there ? If you get an interrupt in the transition, then you are not longer idle. Thanks, tglx --8323328-1710233220-1275394626=:2933-- -- 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/