Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH][1/8] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume (rev. 5)

Alan Stern
2009-03-08T03:53:43Z

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > One thing about this isn't clear: the distinction between "wake-up"
> > interrupts and other interrupts.
> >
> > In an ideal world, the only pending interrupts during sysdev_suspend
> > would be wake-up interrupts, because drivers would have prevented their
> > devices from generating any other kind of IRQ and would have done all
> > the necessary synchronization as part of their suspend (_not_
> > suspend_late) methods. Thus there would be no need to distinguish
> > between wake-up and non-wake-up interrupts.
> >
> > So perhaps you're worried about drivers that aren't sufficiently
> > clever. Or is something deeper going on?
>
> Some drivers leave interrupts enabled during suspend on purpose and mark
> them as "wake-up interrupts" so that the platform can abort suspend if any
> of them is pending at the time the "enter suspend" hook is called (this doesn't
> happen on x86 AFAICS).
>
> However, after the $subject patch the CPU will ACK those interrupts if they
> happen between suspend_device_irqs() and local_irq_disable(), so the platform
> won't see them as pending. Instead, they will have IRQ_PENDING set in
> desc->status, so we check if this is the case.

You didn't answer my question. Why bother to distinguish between
"wake-up" interrupts and non-"wake-up" interrupts?

In other words, why not simply abort the suspend if IRQ_PENDING is set
for _any_ interrupt during sysdev_suspend()?

Alan Stern