All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:12:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200712261612.24583.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0712252229050.25960-100000@netrider.rowland.org>

On Wednesday, 26 of December 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > > > Do we need to worry about the possibility that when the system wakes up 
> > > > from hibernation, the set of usable CPUs might be smaller than it was 
> > > > beforehand?
> > > 
> > > This is possible in error conditions.
> > > 
> > > > Is any special handling needed for this, or is it already accounted for?
> > > 
> > > Hm, well.  The cleanest thing would be to allow the drivers to remove the
> > > device objects on CPU_UP_CANCELED_FROZEN, which means that we weren't able to
> > > bring the CPU up during a resume, but still that will deadlock with
> > > gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch.
> > 
> > Hmm.  In principle, device objects may be destroyed on CPU_UP_CANCELED_FROZEN
> > without acquiring the device locks, since in fact we know these objects won't
> > be accessed concurrently at that time (the locks are already held by the PM
> > core, but the PM core is not going to actually access the devices before the
> > subsequent resume).
> 
> How about delaying the CPU_UP_CANCELED_FROZEN announcements until it's 
> really safe to send them out?  That is, after all devices have been 
> resumed and the PM core no longer holds any of their locks.  (Should 
> this be before or after tasks leave the freezer? -- I'm not sure.)
> 
> So the idea is send appropriate announcements at the usual time for
> CPUs that do come back up normally, and don't send anything right away
> for CPUs that fail to come up.  Just keep track of which ones failed,
> and then later take care of them.

However, we don't want to execute .resume() for device objects that correspond
to the "dead" CPUs, so to a minimum we should remove them from the dpm_off
list on CPU_UP_CANCELED_FROZEN.  For this purpose, we can define a
callback that will remove the device from dpm_off immediately and schedule its
destruction after all devices have been resumed.

Rafael

  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-12-26 14:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-12-24  0:55 [PATCH 0/3] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-24  0:56 ` [PATCH 1/3] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended in msr.c Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-25 12:33   ` Pavel Machek
2007-12-25 12:33   ` Pavel Machek
2007-12-24  0:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-24  0:57 ` [PATCH 2/3] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended in mce_64.c Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-24  0:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-25 12:34   ` Pavel Machek
2007-12-25 12:34   ` Pavel Machek
2007-12-24  0:57 ` [PATCH 3/3] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended in cpuid.c Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-25 12:34   ` Pavel Machek
2007-12-25 12:34   ` Pavel Machek
2007-12-24  0:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-24 15:51 ` [PATCH 0/3] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended Alan Stern
2007-12-25 12:33   ` Pavel Machek
2007-12-25 12:33   ` Pavel Machek
2007-12-25 16:21   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-25 16:21   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-25 19:21     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-25 19:21       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-26  3:33       ` Alan Stern
2007-12-26  3:33       ` Alan Stern
2007-12-26 15:12         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-26 15:12         ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2007-12-24 15:51 ` Alan Stern
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-12-24  0:55 Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200712261612.24583.rjw@sisk.pl \
    --to=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=pavel@suse.cz \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.