On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > --- usb-2.6.orig/include/linux/pm.h
> > +++ usb-2.6/include/linux/pm.h
> > @@ -485,6 +485,7 @@ struct dev_pm_info {
> > unsigned int run_wake:1;
> > unsigned int runtime_auto:1;
> > unsigned int no_callbacks:1;
> > + unsigned int callbacks_in_irq:1;
>
> I kind of don't like this name. What about irq_safe ?
Sure, that's a better name.
> > --- usb-2.6.orig/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > +++ usb-2.6/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> > #define RPM_GET_PUT 0x04 /* Increment/decrement the
> > usage_count */
> > #define RPM_AUTO 0x08 /* Use autosuspend_delay */
> > +#define RPM_IRQ 0x10 /* Don't enable interrupts */
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
> >
> > @@ -40,6 +41,7 @@ extern int pm_generic_runtime_idle(struc
> > extern int pm_generic_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev);
> > extern int pm_generic_runtime_resume(struct device *dev);
> > extern void pm_runtime_no_callbacks(struct device *dev);
> > +extern void pm_runtime_callbacks_in_irq(struct device *dev);
>
> Perhaps this one can be called pm_runtime_irq_safe() in analogy to the struct
> member?
Yes.
> Hmm. This looks rather complicated. I don't really feel good about this
> change. It seems to me that it might be better to actually implement
> the _irq() helpers from scratch. I think I'll try to do that.
That might work out better, but there will be a substantial amount of
code duplication. Try it and see how it turns out.
> Overall, it looks like there's some overlap between RPM_IRQ and
> power.callbacks_in_irq, where the latter may influence the behavior of the
> helpers even if RPM_IRQ is unset.
Exactly. That was intentional.
> I think we should return error code if RPM_IRQ is used, but
> power.callbacks_in_irq is not set.
The patch does that.
> If RPM_IRQ is not set, but
> power.callbacks_in_irq is set, we should fall back to the normal behavior
> (ie. do not avoid sleeping).
By "do not avoid sleeping", do you mean that
(1) the helper functions should be allowed to sleep, or
(2) the callbacks should be invoked with interrupts enabled?
The patch already does (1). By contrast, (2) isn't safe. It means
there is a risk of having one thread do a busy-wait with interrupts
disabled, waiting for another thread that can sleep.
> That's why I think it's better to change the name of power.callbacks_in_irq
> to power.irq_safe.
>
> Also I think we should refuse to set power.callbacks_in_irq for a device
> whose partent (1) doesn't have power.callbacks_in_irq and (2) doesn't
> have power.ignore_children set , and (3) doesn't have power.disable_depth > 0.
> Then, once we've set power.callbacks_in_irq for a device, we should take
> this into consideration when trying to change the parent's settings.
That's not a bad idea, but I don't know if it's necessary in practice.
With the current patch, if you violate this condition you will simply
encounter an error when the PM core refuses to resume a sleeping
parent. Maybe we should allow violations and the resulting refusals
but print a warning message in the system log.
> There probably is more subtelties like this, but I can't see them at the moment.
There are some subtle aspects related to the interplay between idle and
the other callbacks. In principle, the idle and suspend callbacks
doesn't need to have interrupts disabled -- we don't care if interrupt
handlers can't do synchronous suspends; they only need synchronous
resumes. But I wanted to keep things simple, so I treated all the
callbacks the same.
Going further, I'm still a little dubious about the whole point of
having idle notifications at all. I don't see why the PM core can't
notify a subsystem that a device is idle just by calling the
runtime_suspend routine. The routine doesn't have to suspend if it
doesn't want to, and it can always schedule a delayed suspend or an
autosuspend. Maybe you know of a use case where having explicit idle
notifications really does help, but I can't think of any.
One more thing: I'm not sure we really need the "notify" variable in
rpm_suspend. When a suspend callback fails, it means the device is in
use. Whatever is using the device should then be responsible for
sending its own idle notification when it is finished; we shouldn't
need to send a notification as soon as the suspend callback fails.
Also, this can theoretically lead to nasty loops. Suspend callback
fails, idle notification gets sent, the runtime_idle routine tries to
do another pm_runtime_suspend, rinse and repeat... This is made even
worse by the fact that the rpm_idle call after a failed suspend isn't
asynchronous -- you could overflow the kernel's stack. Relying on the
driver to be properly written doesn't help: The device could become
busy when each suspend is about to begin, and it could become inactive
again just before the idle notification. The driver could do the right
thing at each step and still overflow the stack.
Alan Stern
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
