On Mon, 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > 2010/5/31 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: > > On Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > >> 2010/5/30 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: > > ... > >> > >> 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
