On Monday, November 22, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > 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. OK, sorry, I confused things. I have no objections to this part, then, let's focus on the _idle case. > > 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. Right. Which they can't do now, can they? Why do you think we should allow them to do that? > > 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_! :-) Well, not really, as far as I understand it. The semantics of spin_lock_irq() is "turn interrupts off to prevent interrupt handlers running on _this_ CPU from racing with us and acquire the lock to prevent _other_ CPUs from racing with us". If you build the code for non-SMP it becomes the first part only. So IMO the "turn interrupts on/off" thing is a part of the full synchronization mechanism in this case. Anyway, though, if the only reason of doing this is to allow interrupt handlers to call pm_runtime_put_sync(), then I rather wouldn't do it at all. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
