From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, Dilip Kota <dkota@codeaurora.org>,
dtor@chromium.org, swboyd@chromium.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / core: skip suspend next time if resume returns an error
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:05:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181002080554.GC19677@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180927203523.60856-1-dianders@chromium.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1498 bytes --]
Hi!
> In general Linux doesn't behave super great if you get an error while
> executing a device's resume handler. Nothing will come along later
> and and try again to resume the device (and all devices that depend on
> it), so pretty much you're left with a non-functioning device and
> that's not good.
>
> However, even though you'll end up with a non-functioning device we
> still don't consider resume failures to be fatal to the system. We'll
> keep chugging along and just hope that the device that failed to
> resume wasn't too critical. This establishes the precedent that we
> should at least try our best not to fully bork the system after a
> resume failure.
>
> I will argue that the best way to keep the system in the best shape is
> to assume that if a resume callback failed that it did as close to
> no-op as possible. Because of this we should consider the device
> still suspended and shouldn't try to suspend the device again next
> time around. Today that's not what happens. AKA if you have a
> device
I don't think there are many guarantees when device resume fail. It
may have done nothing, and it may have resumed the device almost
fully.
I guess the best option would be to refuse system suspend after some
device failed like that.
That leaves user possibility to debug it...
Pavel--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-02 8:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-27 20:35 [RFC PATCH] PM / core: skip suspend next time if resume returns an error Douglas Anderson
2018-10-02 8:05 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2018-10-02 8:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-10-02 21:01 ` Doug Anderson
2018-10-02 21:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-10-02 22:16 ` Doug Anderson
2018-10-03 8:46 ` 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=20181002080554.GC19677@amd \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=dkota@codeaurora.org \
--cc=dtor@chromium.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=swboyd@chromium.org \
/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