linux-pm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: stern@rowland.harvard.edu, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / Qos: Ensure device not in PRM_SUSPENDED when pm qos flags request functions are invoked in the pm core.
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:08:48 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <509F9550.70508@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5096852C.3000707@intel.com>

On 2012/11/4 23:09, Lan Tianyu wrote:
> On 2012/11/3 4:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>    }
>>>>> > >>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_qos_expose_flags);
>>>>> > >>@@ -645,7 +649,9 @@ void dev_pm_qos_hide_flags(struct device *dev)
>>>>> > >>   {
>>>>> > >>       if (dev->power.qos && dev->power.qos->flags_req) {
>>>>> > >>           pm_qos_sysfs_remove_flags(dev);
>>>>> > >>+        pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
>>>>> > >>           __dev_pm_qos_drop_user_request(dev, DEV_PM_QOS_FLAGS);
>>>>> > >>+        pm_runtime_put(dev);
>>>> > >
>>>> > >I'm not sure if these two are necessary.  If we remove a request,
>>>> > >then what happens worst case is that some flags will be cleared
>>>> > >effectively which means fewer restrictions on the next sleep state.
>>>> > >Then, it shouldn't hurt that the current sleep state is more
>>>> > >restricted.
>>> >
>>> >But this mean the device can be put into lower power state(power off).
>>> >So why not do that? that can save more power, right?
>> Correct.  On the other hand, though, if the device already is in the
>> deepest low-power state available, we will resume it unnecessarily this
>> way.  Which may not be a big deal, however, and since we do that in other
>> cases, we may as well do it here.
> Yeah. This seems not very reasonable. But we can optimize this
> later.From my previous opinion, add notifier for flags and let device
> driver or bus driver to determine when the device should be resumed.
> Since you said at another email you would remove all notifiers in the pm
> qos to make some functions able to be invoked in interrupt context. I
> have a thought that check the context before call notifiers chain. If it
> was in interrupt, not call notifier chain and trigger a work queue or
> other choices to do that. If not, call the chain. Does this make sense? :)
>
Hi Rafael:
	Do you have some opinions?

>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rafael
>
>


-- 
Best Regards
Tianyu Lan
linux kernel enabling team

  reply	other threads:[~2012-11-11 12:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-02  8:03 [PATCH] PM / Qos: Ensure device not in PRM_SUSPENDED when pm qos flags request functions are invoked in the pm core Lan Tianyu
2012-11-02 11:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-11-02 16:16   ` Lan Tianyu
2012-11-02 20:11     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-11-04 15:09       ` Lan Tianyu
2012-11-11 12:08         ` Lan Tianyu [this message]
2012-11-11 14:43           ` Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=509F9550.70508@intel.com \
    --to=tianyu.lan@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).