On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Below is a patch that adds some statistics to the previously merged
> pm_wakeup_event()/pm_stay_awake()/pm_relax() code. It also makes it possible
> to use wakeup sources that are not directly associated with devices.
I noted only a few things during a quick read-through. See below.
> It adds functions for manipulating wakeup source objects and reworks the
> device wakeup enabling/disabling to use the new functions. The list of wakeup
> sources is only used for updating the "hit count" statistics for now (this is
> the number of times the wakeup source was active when the PM core checked), but
> I'm planning to add a /proc file listing all wakeup sources, including the ones
> that are not attached to device objects.
It must be obvious that this is starting to look more and more like the
suspend_blockers patch. What that means or will lead to, I don't
know...
> It appears to work with the PCI wakeup code added previously, but that's only
> one case. I'm also not sure if it builds withoug CONFIG_PM_SLEEP. [BTW, I'm
> not sure it atomic_inc() and atomic_dec() imply a memory barrier in general.
> That seems to be the case on x86, but I don't know about other architectures.]
They do not imply memory barriers. See the section on atomic
operations in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt.
> +/**
> + * wakeup_source_create - Create a struct wakeup_source object.
> + * @name: Name of the new wakeup source.
> + */
> +struct wakeup_source *wakeup_source_create(const char *name)
> +{
> + struct wakeup_source *ws;
> +
> + ws = kzalloc(sizeof(*ws), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!ws)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + if (name) {
> + int len = strlen(name);
> + char *s = kzalloc(len + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (s) {
> + strncpy(s, name, len);
Would it be better to use kmalloc instead of kzalloc, call memcpy
instead of strncpy, and write the terminating NUL character manually?
> + ws->name = s;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return ws;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wakeup_source_create);
> +
> +/**
> + * wakeup_source_destroy - Destroy a struct wakeup_source object.
> + * @ws: Wakeup source to destroy.
> + */
> +void wakeup_source_destroy(struct wakeup_source *ws)
> +{
> + if (!ws)
> + return;
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&ws->lock);
Since you use the spinlock here, it needs to be initialized in
wakeup_source_create rather than wakeup_source_register.
> + while (ws->active) {
> + spin_unlock_irq(&ws->lock);
> +
> + schedule_timeout_interruptible(msecs_to_jiffies(TIMEOUT));
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&ws->lock);
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irq(&ws->lock);
> +
> + if (ws->name)
> + kfree(ws->name);
No need for the "if".
> + kfree(ws);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wakeup_source_destroy);
> +
> +/**
> + * wakeup_source_register - Add given object to the list of wakeup sources.
> + * @ws: Wakeup source object to register.
> + */
> +void wakeup_source_register(struct wakeup_source *ws)
> +{
> + if (WARN_ON(!ws))
> + return;
> +
> + spin_lock_init(&ws->lock);
> + setup_timer(&ws->timer, pm_wakeup_timer_fn, (unsigned long)ws);
> + ws->active = false;
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&events_lock);
> + list_add_rcu(&ws->entry, &wakeup_sources);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&events_lock);
> + synchronize_rcu();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wakeup_source_register);
...
> +/**
> + * wakeup_source_add - Create and register a wakeup source object.
> + * @name: Name of the wakeup source to create.
> + */
> +struct wakeup_source *wakeup_source_add(const char *name)
> +{
> + struct wakeup_source *ws;
> +
> + ws = wakeup_source_create(name);
> + if (ws)
> + wakeup_source_register(ws);
> +
> + return ws;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wakeup_source_add);
Your use of names is backward. Normally the *_register routine does
*_init followed by *_add.
I haven't looked through the rest in enough detail yet to make any
meaningful comments.
Alan Stern
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
