On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:36:29AM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 22:33 +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:46:22AM -0700, Todd Brandt wrote: > > > I'd like to propose that we push the i915 > > > suspend_late/resume_early code > > > into suspend_noirq/resume_noirq in order to reduce the total > > > suspend time > > > by ~15ms. According to the comments, when i915_pm_suspend_late was > > > first > > > added to the kernel back in April 2014, it was done so to ensure > > > that it > > > was called after the snd_hda_intel driver had finished its > > > suspend. > > > > Ordering issues like this one should be solved with > > device_pm_wait_for_dev(), > > not by shuffling code around among the callbacks. > > We considered using device_pm_wait_for_dev() but decided not to, since > it may dead lock in case of suspend/resume: > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2014-December/057113.html device_pm_wait_for_dev sounds like the exact counterpart to EDEFERRED_PROBE for solving load-time ordering issues. It makes sense, and I think we should use it. Somehow I missed in that entire discussion that this exists. In both cases you can fry/deadlock your kernel if you disable the async queues, and imo that shouldn't be a concern for us. Of course cc Rafael, in case something changed in this area. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
