On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > I think we need to have the PM core call pm_runtime_get_noresume() > > before invoking the resume_noirq (or thaw_noirq or restore_noirq) > > callback, and then call pm_runtime_put_sync() after invoking the > > complete callback. This would solve your race: The put_sync would > > invoke the runtime_idle method, which would start another runtime > > suspend or autosuspend. > > > > (It used to be that the PM core called pm_runtime_get_noresume() > > earlier on, before the prepare callback. This also solved your race, > > but it caused other problems and so was changed.) > > > > It's true that subsystems could do this for themselves, but then they'd > > _all_ have to do it. So we might as well put it in the PM core. > > > > Rafael, what do you think? > > Yes, we can do that. > > I even suspect that all subsystems will end up calling pm_runtime_disable() > somewhere in the system suspend code path and pm_runtime_enable() during > system resume. It might be a good idea to do that in the core too, after > calling the subsystem's .suspend() and before calling its .resume(), > respectively. Will that bring back Kevin's problems? There was a specific commit: "PM: Allow pm_runtime_suspend() to succeed during system suspend". If the core disables runtime PM, won't he be right back where he was before? Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
