From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended (rev. 2)
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:52:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080102105217.GA14731@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200801020032.45529.rjw@sisk.pl>
* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some device drivers register CPU hotplug notifiers and use them to
> destroy device objects when removing the corresponding CPUs and to
> create these objects when adding the CPUs back.
>
> Unfortunately, this is not the right thing to do during
> suspend/hibernation, since in that cases the CPU hotplug notifiers are
> called after suspending devices and before resuming them, so the
> operations in question are carried out on the objects representing
> suspended devices which shouldn't be unregistered behing the PM core's
> back. Although right now it usually doesn't lead to any practical
> complications, it will predictably deadlock if
> gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch is
> applied.
>
> The solution is to prevent drivers from removing/adding devices from
> within CPU hotplug notifiers during suspend/hibernation using the
> FROZEN bit in the notifier's action argument. However, this has to be
> done with care, since the devices objects related to the nonboot CPUs
> that failed to go online during resume should not be present in the
> system. For this reason, it seems reasonable to introduce a mechanism
> allowing drivers to ask the PM core to remove device objects
> corresponding to suspended devices on their behalf.
>
> The first patch in the series introduces such a mechanism. The
> remaining three patches modify the MSR, x86-64 MCE and cpuid drivers
> in accordance with the above approach.
btw., it would be really, really cool if there was a scriptable way i
could test suspend/resume functionality. Pavel has this /dev/rtc thing
to set up an alarm (not sure how functional it is) - would it be
possible to have it as a "suspend for 10 seconds then resume" debug
functionality? That way any suspend breakage would be detectable (and
bisectable) in automated testing - if the resume does not come back
after 10-20 seconds then the test failed.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended (rev. 2)
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:52:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080102105217.GA14731@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200801020032.45529.rjw@sisk.pl>
* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some device drivers register CPU hotplug notifiers and use them to
> destroy device objects when removing the corresponding CPUs and to
> create these objects when adding the CPUs back.
>
> Unfortunately, this is not the right thing to do during
> suspend/hibernation, since in that cases the CPU hotplug notifiers are
> called after suspending devices and before resuming them, so the
> operations in question are carried out on the objects representing
> suspended devices which shouldn't be unregistered behing the PM core's
> back. Although right now it usually doesn't lead to any practical
> complications, it will predictably deadlock if
> gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch is
> applied.
>
> The solution is to prevent drivers from removing/adding devices from
> within CPU hotplug notifiers during suspend/hibernation using the
> FROZEN bit in the notifier's action argument. However, this has to be
> done with care, since the devices objects related to the nonboot CPUs
> that failed to go online during resume should not be present in the
> system. For this reason, it seems reasonable to introduce a mechanism
> allowing drivers to ask the PM core to remove device objects
> corresponding to suspended devices on their behalf.
>
> The first patch in the series introduces such a mechanism. The
> remaining three patches modify the MSR, x86-64 MCE and cpuid drivers
> in accordance with the above approach.
btw., it would be really, really cool if there was a scriptable way i
could test suspend/resume functionality. Pavel has this /dev/rtc thing
to set up an alarm (not sure how functional it is) - would it be
possible to have it as a "suspend for 10 seconds then resume" debug
functionality? That way any suspend breakage would be detectable (and
bisectable) in automated testing - if the resume does not come back
after 10-20 seconds then the test failed.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-02 10:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-01 23:32 [PATCH 0/4] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended (rev. 2) Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-01 23:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-01 23:34 ` [PATCH 1/4] PM: Introduce destroy_suspended_device() Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-02 13:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-02 16:41 ` Alan Stern
2008-01-02 16:41 ` Alan Stern
2008-01-02 16:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-02 16:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-04 22:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-04 22:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-04 23:29 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM: Acquire device locks on suspend (was: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM: Introduce destroy_suspended_device()) Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-04 23:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-05 3:11 ` [PATCH 1/4] PM: Introduce destroy_suspended_device() Alan Stern
2008-01-05 11:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-05 11:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-05 3:11 ` Alan Stern
2008-01-02 13:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-01 23:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-01 23:40 ` [PATCH 2/4] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended in msr.c (rev. 2) Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-01 23:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-01 23:40 ` [PATCH 3/4] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended in mce_64.c Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-01 23:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-01 23:42 ` [PATCH 4/4] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended in cpuid.c Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-01 23:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-02 10:52 ` [PATCH 0/4] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended (rev. 2) Ingo Molnar
2008-01-02 10:52 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-01-02 10:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-02 12:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-02 12:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-02 12:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-02 13:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-02 13:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-02 13:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-03 10:56 ` Pavel Machek
2008-01-03 10:56 ` Pavel Machek
2008-01-02 13:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-02 14:55 ` Kay Sievers
2008-01-02 16:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-02 17:54 ` David Brownell
2008-01-02 17:54 ` David Brownell
2008-01-02 17:54 ` David Brownell
2008-01-02 18:05 ` Alessandro Zummo
2008-01-02 18:05 ` Alessandro Zummo
2008-01-02 18:05 ` Alessandro Zummo
2008-01-02 18:12 ` David Brownell
2008-01-02 18:12 ` David Brownell
2008-01-02 18:34 ` Alessandro Zummo
2008-01-02 18:34 ` Alessandro Zummo
2008-01-02 18:34 ` Alessandro Zummo
2008-01-02 18:12 ` David Brownell
2008-01-02 20:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-02 20:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-02 20:29 ` David Brownell
2008-01-02 20:29 ` David Brownell
2008-01-02 16:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-02 14:55 ` Kay Sievers
2008-01-02 17:26 ` David Brownell
2008-01-02 17:26 ` David Brownell
2008-01-02 17:26 ` David Brownell
2008-01-02 20:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-02 20:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-12 0:46 ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-12 0:49 ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-12 0:49 ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-12 0:56 ` Greg KH
2008-01-12 0:56 ` Greg KH
2008-01-12 3:11 ` Alan Stern
2008-01-12 3:11 ` Alan Stern
2008-01-12 3:11 ` Alan Stern
2008-01-12 3:15 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-12 3:15 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-12 3:21 ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-12 3:21 ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-12 4:29 ` Greg KH
2008-01-12 11:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-12 11:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-12 4:29 ` Greg KH
2008-01-12 11:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-12 11:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-12 0:49 ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-12 0:46 ` Andrew Morton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-01-01 23:32 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=20080102105217.GA14731@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=pavel@suse.cz \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--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.