On Thursday 06 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, [UTF-8] Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>
> > +static void suspend_worker(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + int entry_event_num;
> > +
> > + enable_suspend_blockers = true;
> > + while (!suspend_is_blocked()) {
> > + entry_event_num = current_event_num;
> > +
> > + if (debug_mask & DEBUG_SUSPEND)
> > + pr_info("suspend: enter suspend\n");
> > +
> > + ret = pm_suspend(requested_suspend_state);
> > +
> > + if (debug_mask & DEBUG_EXIT_SUSPEND)
> > + pr_info_time("suspend: exit suspend, ret = %d ", ret);
> > +
> > + if (current_event_num == entry_event_num)
> > + pr_info("suspend: pm_suspend returned with no event\n");
> > + }
> > + enable_suspend_blockers = false;
> > +}
>
> Here's a completely new issue. When using opportunistic suspends on an
> SMP system, it could happen that the system gets a wakeup event and
> this routine starts running again before the event's IRQ handler has
> finished (or has enabled a suspend blocker). The system would
> re-suspend too soon.
This routine will be run from a freezable workqueue.
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
