From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:23:24 +0100 Message-ID: <200902232323.25583.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200902221837.49396.rjw@sisk.pl> <200902221839.50357.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Arve =?iso-8859-1?q?Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , LKML , Jesse Barnes , Thomas Gleixner , "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Monday 23 February 2009, Arve Hj=F8nnev=E5g wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > Introduce two helper functions allowing us to disable device > > interrupts (at the IO-APIC level) during suspend or hibernation > > and enable them during the subsequent resume, respectively, so that > > the timer interrupts are enabled while "late" suspend callbacks and > > "early" resume callbacks provided by device drivers are being > > executed. > > > > Use these functions to rework the handling of interrupts during > > suspend (hibernation) and resume. Namely, interrupts will only be > > disabled on the CPU right before suspending sysdevs, while device > > interrupts will be disabled (at the IO-APIC level), with the help of > > the new helper function, before calling "late" suspend callbacks > > provided by device drivers and analogously during resume. > > > = > What impact does this have on wakeup interrupts? Unless you add a > check, after masking all interrupt at the CPU, to abort suspend if any > wakeup interrupt has IRQ_PENDING set I think you will loose wakeup > interrupts (at least for irqs that use default_disable). I _think_ they would have to be reenabled after we've called local_irq_disable(). Thanks, Rafael