From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [update, rev. 6] Re: [PATCH 1/10] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume (rev. 5) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:39:50 +0100 Message-ID: <20090313003950.GB19544__47546.6617769145$1236905177$gmane$org@elte.hu> References: <200902221837.49396.rjw@sisk.pl> <200903121436.21504.rjw@sisk.pl> <200903122243.27452.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200903122243.27452.rjw@sisk.pl> 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: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Frans Pop , LKML , Jesse Barnes , "Eric W. Biederman" , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org * Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday 12 March 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(suspend_device_irqs); > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not too enthusiastic about this open coded implementation of > > > > > > disable_irq() with slightly different semantics. > > > > > > > > > > The difference in semantics is important IMO, otherwise I woulndn't have > > > > > done that. In particular, IMO, the condition should be under the spinlock IMO > > > > > and I'd rather not synchronize all interrupts we don't really disable here. > > > > > > > > I don't say that the difference is not relevant. But the code is > > > > almost the same and disable_irq() could have the sync_irq optimization > > > > as well. > > > > > > Thought more about that. Avoiding the sync_irq() for irqs which have > > > no action associated is fine, but you need to catch the following case > > > as well: > > > > > > driver code calls disable_irq_nosyc() from the handler (which is > > > still running) > > > > > > suspend code skips the sync due to depth > 0 > > > > > > The sync operation is not that expensive. > > > > OK, what about this (untested, irrelevant parts skipped)? > > Well, I guess I need to assume that no reaction means it's fine. ;-) > > Below is the complete patch. Thomas, Ingo, please let me know > it it is fine with you. looks good - but you sure want to split it up some more, right? > 13 files changed, 195 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) We want the non-intrusive 'add new APIs' bits [which give most of the linecount] separated from the 'all hell breaks lose' functional changes ;-) Makes it easier to revert, bisect, etc. Ingo