On Saturday, February 12, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Friday, February 11, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > On Monday, January 31, 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> >> On Monday, January 31, 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > >> >> > On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > I understand how this works, but frankly I'm still a bit fuzzy on why. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I guess I'm still missing a good understanding of what "interfering with a > >> >> > > system power transition" means, and why a runtime suspend qualifies as > >> >> > > interfering but not a runtime resume. > >> >> > > >> >> > These are good questions. Rafael implemented this design originally; > >> >> > my contribution was only to warn him of the potential for problems. > >> >> > Therefore he should explain the rationale for the design. > >> >> > >> >> The reason why runtime resume is allowed during system power transitions is > >> >> because in some cases during system suspend we simply have to resume devices > >> >> that were previously runtime-suspended (for example, the PCI bus type does > >> >> that). > >> >> > >> >> The reason why runtime suspend is not allowed during system power transitions > >> >> if the following race: > >> >> > >> >> - A device has been suspended via a system suspend callback. > >> >> - The runtime PM framework executes a (scheduled) suspend on that device, > >> >> not knowing that it's already been suspended, which potentially results in > >> >> accessing the device's registers in a low-power state. > >> >> > >> >> Now, it can be avoided if every driver does the right thing and checks whether > >> >> the device is already suspended in its runtime suspend callback, but that would > >> >> kind of defeat the purpose of the runtime PM framework, at least partially. > >> > > >> > In fact, I've just realized that the above race cannot really occur, because > >> > pm_wq is freezable, so I'm proposing the following change. > >> > > >> > Of course, it still doesn't prevent user space from disabling the runtime PM > >> > framework's helpers via /sys/devices/.../power/control. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Rafael > >> > > >> > > >> > --- > >> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > >> > Subject: PM: Allow pm_runtime_suspend() to succeed during system suspend > >> > > >> > The dpm_prepare() function increments the runtime PM reference > >> > counters of all devices to prevent pm_runtime_suspend() from > >> > executing subsystem-level callbacks. However, this was supposed to > >> > guard against a specific race condition that cannot happen, because > >> > the power management workqueue is freezable, so pm_runtime_suspend() > >> > can only be called synchronously during system suspend and we can > >> > rely on subsystems and device drivers to avoid doing that > >> > unnecessarily. > >> > > >> > Make dpm_prepare() drop the runtime PM reference to each device > >> > after making sure that runtime resume is not pending for it. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > >> Yes! > >> > >> Acked-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> > > > > Well, I hope you realize that it doesn't help you a lot? > > > > If you mean that because we still have to implement system PM methods > because of /sys/devices/.../power/control, I agree. Yes, I meant that. > If something else, please explain. > > But to me it is still very helpful in terms of consistency and what > driver writers would expect to happen if they used pm_runtime_suspend() > in their system suspend method. OK Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
