On Wednesday, September 08, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> 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.
Great. :-)
> 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...
This actually is intentional, because I want to make it easier for the Android
people to move their stuff towards the mainline, if they want to.
> > 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.
Ah. Thanks for the pointer.
> > +/**
> > + * 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?
Yeah, thanks.
> > + 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.
Yes, thanks.
> > + 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".
OK
> > + 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.
Hmm, I haven't noticed that. Thanks for the heads up. :-)
> I haven't looked through the rest in enough detail yet to make any
> meaningful comments.
Sure. Thanks a lot for your comments so far!
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
