Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-03-01T23:17:50Z

On Sunday 01 March 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> Can you summarize what the problems with my current api are? I get the
> >> impression that you think the overhead of using a list is too high,
> >> and that timeout support should be removed because you think all
> >> drivers that use it are broken.
> >
> > In no particular order:
> > 1. One user space process can create an unlimited number of wakelocks. This
> > shouldn't be possible. Moreover, it is not even necessary for any process
> > to have more than one wakelock held at any time.
>
> This has been addressed. A user space process cannot create more
> wakelocks than it has filedescriptors.
>
> > 2. Timeouts are wrong, because they don't really _solve_ any problem. They are
> > useful for working around the fact that you can't or you don't want to
> > modify every piece of code that in principle should take a wakelock and
> > that's it.
>
> Yes, timeouts are sometimes wrong, but they are not always wrong. I
> gave two examples where the use of timeouts was not incorrect.

There still is a problem that the same operation can take time X on one
platform and time Y on another, so how are you going to determine the timeouts
that will be suitable for all platforms?

> > However, entire concept of having one code path acting on
> > behalf of another one on a hunch that it might be doing something making
> > suspend undesirable is conceptually broken IMO.
>
> OK. Do you have an alternative?

Well, IMO every code path doing something that makes automatic suspend
undesirable should use a suspend blocker of some sort. I'm afraid any other
approach will be unreliable and racy.

> I my opinion this is how the entire system works if you do autosuspend
> without a mechanism like wakelocks.

It surely hasn't been designed with automatic suspend in mind.

Thanks,
Rafael