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