All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>
Cc: Hayes Wang <hayeswang@realtek.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"peter@lekensteyn.nl" <peter@lekensteyn.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] r8152: fix lockup when runtime PM is enabled
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:14:13 -0500 (EST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1512241007050.2785-100000@netrider.rowland.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1450941280.28243.8.camel@suse.com>

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 20:32 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> 
> > I don't understand why the wakeup conditions are different.  It seems
> > to me that the choice of which packets will generate a wakeup ought to
> > depend on the user's selection, not on the kind of suspend.  For
> > instance, if the user says that only a magic packet should cause a
> > wakeup then that should be true for both runtime suspend and system
> > suspend.
> > 
> > To put it another way, as far as the device is concerned a suspend is
> > just a suspend -- there's no different between a runtime suspend and a
> > system suspend.
> 
> This literally true, but the host and the driver care.
> If we autosuspend a running network device, any packet
> (maybe filtered for MAC) should cause a remote wake up,
> else we'd lose packets.

That's also true during system suspend.

> But you cannot keep that setting if the system goes down
> or any broadcast packet would resume the whole system.
> Yet you cannot just disable remote wake up, as WoL packages
> still must trigger a remote wake up.

This means that sometimes you want to avoid losing packets and other 
times you do want to lose packets.  That is a policy decision, and 
therefore it should be made by the user, not the kernel.

> So there are drivers which must change settings on devices
> as the system goes to sleep, even if their devices have
> already been autosuspended. We could use the notifier chains
> for that. But can this solution be called elegant?

Instead of the driver trying to do this automatically, you could rely 
on userspace telling the driver which packets should cause a wakeup.  
The setting could be updated immediately before and after each system 
suspend.

I admit this is more awkward than having the driver make a choice based 
on the type of suspend.  This is a case where the resources provided by 
the PM core aren't adequate for what the driver needs.  The PM core 
distinguishes between wakeup enabled or disabled; it doesn't 
distinguish among different levels of wakekup.

Alan Stern


  reply	other threads:[~2015-12-24 15:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-12-08 11:17 [PATCH v2] r8152: fix lockup when runtime PM is enabled Peter Wu
2015-12-08 12:39 ` Hayes Wang
2015-12-08 14:33   ` Peter Wu
2015-12-15 11:32     ` Oliver Neukum
2015-12-22  9:48     ` Hayes Wang
2015-12-22 11:01       ` Oliver Neukum
2015-12-23  3:31         ` Hayes Wang
2015-12-23  3:31           ` Hayes Wang
2015-12-23  8:20           ` Oliver Neukum
2015-12-23  9:20             ` Hayes Wang
2015-12-23  9:20               ` Hayes Wang
2015-12-23 10:45               ` Oliver Neukum
2015-12-23 11:15                 ` Hayes Wang
2015-12-23 11:15                   ` Hayes Wang
2015-12-24  1:32               ` Alan Stern
2015-12-24  7:14                 ` Oliver Neukum
2015-12-24 15:14                   ` Alan Stern [this message]
2015-12-24 15:47                     ` Oliver Neukum
2015-12-24 16:08                       ` Alan Stern
2015-12-09  3:48 ` David Miller

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=Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1512241007050.2785-100000@netrider.rowland.org \
    --to=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    --cc=hayeswang@realtek.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oneukum@suse.com \
    --cc=peter@lekensteyn.nl \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.