Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757515Ab0FBDXl (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 23:23:41 -0400 Received: from mail-pv0-f174.google.com ([74.125.83.174]:47894 "EHLO mail-pv0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755122Ab0FBDXj convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 23:23:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <201005302202.39511.rjw@sisk.pl> <201005312347.24251.rjw@sisk.pl> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 20:23:38 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arve_Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= To: Thomas Gleixner 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1877 Lines: 42 2010/6/1 Thomas Gleixner : > 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. > Because suspend itself causes you to not be idle you cannot abort suspend just because you are not idle anymore. -- Arve Hj?nnev?g -- 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/