On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > I didn't like this change before and I still don't like it. Quite frankly, I'm > > > not sure I can convince Linus to pull it. :-) > > > > > > Why don't we simply execute the callback under the spinlock in the > > > IRQ safe case? > > > > Because it wouldn't work. The job of the runtime_idle callback is to > > call pm_runtime_suspend when needed. But if the callback runs under > > the spinlock then pm_runtime_suspend would hang when it tries to grab > > the lock. > > Yes, in the _idle case. I actually should have put my comment under > the change in rpm_callback(), which is what I really meant. But the new rpm_callback() _does_ simply execute the callback under the spinlock in the irq-safe case. So I don't understand what you mean here. > Moreover, I'm not sure if we need an "IRQ safe" version of _idle. Why do > we need it, exactly? Because pm_runtime_put_sync() calls rpm_idle(). If there were no irq-safe version of rpm_idle() then drivers wouldn't be able to call pm_runtime_put_sync() from within an interrupt handler. > The problem I have with this change is that switching interrupts off really is > a part of the locking operation, so using spin_unlock() after spin_lock_irq...() > is kind of like releasing the lock partially, which I don't think is valid > (even if we're going to reacquire the lock immediately). On the contrary; spin_unlock() after spin_lock_irq() doesn't partially release the lock -- it releases the lock _entirely_! :-) Besides which, the existing code already releases the spinlock before making callbacks, so there should be no reason to worry about that issue. The new code either: releases the spinlock but keeps interrupts disabled (in rpm_idle), or doesn't release the spinlock (in rpm_callback). Either way, I should think you'd find the new code _less_ objectionable than the existing code, not _more_ objectionable. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
