On Friday, June 25, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > That's not the point. If a wakeup handler queues a work item (for > > > example, by calling pm_request_resume) then it wouldn't need to guess a > > > timeout. The work item would be guaranteed to run before the system > > > could suspend again. > > > > You seem to be referring to the PM workqueue specifically. Perhaps it would be > > better to special-case it and stop it by adding a barrier work during suspend > > instead of just freezing? Then, it wouldn't need to be singlethread any more. > > The barrier work would have to be queued to each CPU's thread. That > would be okay. I guess we should stop the PM workqueue after the freezing of tasks, shouldn't we? > Hmm, it looks like wait_event_freezable() and > wait_event_freezable_timeout() could use similar changes: If the > condition is true then they shouldn't try to freeze the caller. Yes, but that should be a separate patch IMHO. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
