* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > >> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > [--snip--] > > > Can you show me a _single_ _driver_ currently in the tree doing something > > > like you describe in suspend_late and resume_early? If you can't, then please > > > give up. > > > > I don't know if any drivers call disable_irq or enable_irq in their > > suspend hooks, but your change also allow timers, and I assume kernel > > threads, to run during this phase. > > > > There are several drivers (keypad drivers in particular), in tree and > > out of tree, that call enable_irq from timers, and disable_irq from > > their interrupt handler. If you also apply your later change to > > disable non boot cpus after suspend_device_irqs, then on smp systems > > the interrupt handler may run at the same time as suspend_device_irqs. > > If suspend_device_irqs gets the spinlock first, then IRQ_SUSPENDED > > gets set. If another suspend/resume cycle happens before the timer > > runs, you will incorrectly enable the interrupt. > > Well, unfortunately this is a valid point IMO. I've been thinking for quite a > while how to fix it nicely, but I'm not sure if there is a nice fix. > > Below is an updated patch, hopefully everyone will be fine with it. > > Ingo, is making __enable_irq() an extern function acceptable? Sure, that's fine - it's a genirq internal function still between kernel/irq/manage.c and kernel/irq/pm.c. Ingo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
