Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> My whole point was that by doing the whole "wait for children" in generic 
> code, you also made devices - such as PCI bridges - have to wait for 
> children, even though they don't need to, and don't want to.
> 
> So I suggested an admittedly ugly hack to take care of it - rather than 
> some complex infrastructure.

It doesn't feel like an ugly hack to me.  It seems like exactly the 
Right Thing To Do: Make as many devices as possible use async 
suspend/resume.

The only reason we don't make every device async is because we don't
know whether it's safe.  In the case of PCI bridges we _do_ know --
because they don't have any work to do outside of
late_suspend/early_resume -- and so they _should_ be async.

The same goes for devices that don't have suspend or resume methods.

There remains a separate question: Should async devices also be forced
to wait for their children?  I don't see why not.  For PCI bridges it
won't make any significant difference.  As long as the async code
doesn't have to do anything, who cares when it runs?

Alan Stern

_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux