From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:28:39 -0700 Subject: [linux-pm] [RFC/PATCH v2] PM / Runtime: allow _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context In-Reply-To: <201107240102.09698.rjw@sisk.pl> (Rafael J. Wysocki's message of "Sun, 24 Jul 2011 01:02:09 +0200") References: <1311371188-28879-1-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <201107240102.09698.rjw@sisk.pl> Message-ID: <87r55cpnwo.fsf@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes: > On Friday, July 22, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Currently the use of pm_runtime_put_sync() is not safe from >> interrupts-disabled context because rpm_idle() will release the >> spinlock and enable interrupts for the idle callbacks. This enables >> interrupts during a time where interrupts were expected to be >> disabled, and can have strange side effects on drivers that expected >> interrupts to be disabled. >> >> This is not a bug since the documentation clearly states that only >> _put_sync_suspend() is safe in IRQ-safe mode. >> >> However, pm_runtime_put_sync() could be made safe when in IRQ-safe >> mode by releasing the spinlock but not re-enabling interrupts, which >> is what this patch aims to do. >> >> Problem was found when using some buggy drivers that set >> pm_runtime_irq_safe() and used _put_sync() in interrupts-disabled >> context. >> >> The offending drivers have been fixed to use _put_sync_suspend(), >> But this patch is an RFC to see if it might make sense to allow >> using _put_sync() from interrupts-disabled context. > > OK, I'm going to take this for 3.2. > OK, great. Thanks. Might want to just drop the last paragraph from the changelog since it doesn't really belong in the permanant history. Kevin