From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 14:17:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <201005302202.39511.rjw@sisk.pl> <201005312347.24251.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-1710233220-1275394626=:2933" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Arve_Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Florian Mickler , Matthew Garrett , Alan Stern , Peter Zijlstra , Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, LKML , felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM , Alan Cox List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-1710233220-1275394626=:2933 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Mon, 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > 2010/5/31 Rafael J. Wysocki : > > On Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > >> 2010/5/30 Rafael J. Wysocki : > > ... > >> > >> I think it makes more sense to block suspend while wakeup events are > >> pending than blocking it everywhere timers are used by code that could > >> be called while handling wakeup events or other critical work. Also, > >> even if you did block suspend everywhere timers where used you still > >> have the race where a wakeup interrupt happens right after you decided > >> to suspend. In other words, you still need to block suspend in all the > >> same places as with the current opportunistic suspend code, so what is > >> the benefit of delaying suspend until idle? > > > > Assume for a while that you don't use suspend blockers, OK?  I realize you > > think that anything else doesn't make sense, but evidently some other people > > have that opinion about suspend blockers. > > > > It sounded like you were suggesting that initiating suspend from idle > would somehow avoid the race condition with wakeup events. All I'm > saying is that you would need to block suspend in all the same places. > If you don't care about ignoring wakeup events, then sure you can > initiate suspend from idle. And why should you miss a wakeup there ? If you get an interrupt in the transition, then you are not longer idle. Thanks, tglx --8323328-1710233220-1275394626=:2933--