On Saturday, February 12, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Friday, February 11, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> > On Monday, January 31, 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> >> On Monday, January 31, 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > >> >> > On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > I understand how this works, but frankly I'm still a bit fuzzy on > >> >> > > why. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I guess I'm still missing a good understanding of what "interfering > >> >> > > with a > >> >> > > system power transition" means, and why a runtime suspend qualifies > >> >> > > as > >> >> > > interfering but not a runtime resume. > >> >> > > >> >> > These are good questions. Rafael implemented this design originally; > >> >> > my contribution was only to warn him of the potential for problems. > >> >> > Therefore he should explain the rationale for the design. > >> >> > >> >> The reason why runtime resume is allowed during system power > >> >> transitions is > >> >> because in some cases during system suspend we simply have to resume > >> >> devices > >> >> that were previously runtime-suspended (for example, the PCI bus type > >> >> does > >> >> that). > >> >> > >> >> The reason why runtime suspend is not allowed during system power > >> >> transitions > >> >> if the following race: > >> >> > >> >> - A device has been suspended via a system suspend callback. > >> >> - The runtime PM framework executes a (scheduled) suspend on that > >> >> device, > >> >> not knowing that it's already been suspended, which potentially > >> >> results in > >> >> accessing the device's registers in a low-power state. > >> >> > >> >> Now, it can be avoided if every driver does the right thing and checks > >> >> whether > >> >> the device is already suspended in its runtime suspend callback, but > >> >> that would > >> >> kind of defeat the purpose of the runtime PM framework, at least > >> >> partially. > >> > > >> > In fact, I've just realized that the above race cannot really occur, > >> > because > >> > pm_wq is freezable, so I'm proposing the following change. > >> > > >> > Of course, it still doesn't prevent user space from disabling the > >> > runtime PM > >> > framework's helpers via /sys/devices/.../power/control. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Rafael > >> > > >> > > >> > --- > >> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> > >> > Subject: PM: Allow pm_runtime_suspend() to succeed during system suspend > >> > > >> > The dpm_prepare() function increments the runtime PM reference > >> > counters of all devices to prevent pm_runtime_suspend() from > >> > executing subsystem-level callbacks. However, this was supposed to > >> > guard against a specific race condition that cannot happen, because > >> > the power management workqueue is freezable, so pm_runtime_suspend() > >> > can only be called synchronously during system suspend and we can > >> > rely on subsystems and device drivers to avoid doing that > >> > unnecessarily. > >> > > >> > Make dpm_prepare() drop the runtime PM reference to each device > >> > after making sure that runtime resume is not pending for it. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> > >> > --- > >> > >> Yes! > >> > >> Acked-by: Kevin Hilman <[email protected]> > > > > Well, I hope you realize that it doesn't help you a lot? > > > > If you mean that because we still have to implement system PM methods > because of /sys/devices/.../power/control, I agree.
Yes, I meant that. > If something else, please explain. > > But to me it is still very helpful in terms of consistency and what > driver writers would expect to happen if they used pm_runtime_suspend() > in their system suspend method. OK Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
