From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3]PM/Sleep: Timer quiesce in freeze state Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:45:43 +0100 Message-ID: <2433846.5N8KuFRAKW@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <54866625.8010406@linux.intel.com> <7916564.nnH80uMtkt@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:61655 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752517AbbAZOXA (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:23:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: "Li, Aubrey" , Peter Zijlstra , "Brown, Len" , "alan@linux.intel.com" , LKML , Linux PM list On Monday, January 26, 2015 03:15:43 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Monday, January 26, 2015 10:40:24 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Li, Aubrey wrote: > > > > On 2015/1/22 18:15, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > Can we please stop adding more crap to that notifier thing? I rather > > > > > see that go away than being expanded. > > > > > > > > Are you referring to FREEZE_PREPARE or remove all of FREEZE staff at all? > > > > > > > > What's the disadvantage of adding more notifier? > > > > > > clockevents_notify() is not a notifier. Its a multiplex call and I > > > want to get rid of it and replace it with explicit functions. > > > > OK, so perhaps we need to move _SUSPEND/_RESUME out of there to start with? > > > > As far as I can say, clockevents_notify(CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_SUSPEND, NULL) and > > clockevents_notify(CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_RESUME, NULL) are each only called from > > one place and moreover, since they are in syscore_ops, we don't need any > > locking around them. > > > > So what about the patch below? > > I'm cleaning up the whole replacement of notify. The stuff below is > part of it. > > > > > - clockevents_notify(CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_SUSPEND, NULL); > > + tick_suspend(); > > + tick_suspend_broadcast(); > > That's exactly the stuff I don't want to see. Blind code > move. At least it's clear what the patch does. :-) > tick_suspend_broadcast() wants to be called from tick_suspend(). OK > Still compiling and testing a gazillion of combinations. OK, so it looks like we need to wait with the suspend to idle changes until this lands. Rafael