From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751091AbZHSBHL (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:07:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750818AbZHSBHJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:07:09 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:47656 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750806AbZHSBHI (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:07:08 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,405,1246863600"; d="scan'208";a="440536196" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] PM: Asynchronous suspend and resume (updated) From: Zhang Rui To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Alan Stern , linux-pm , linux-acpi , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Len Brown , Arjan van de Ven , Greg KH In-Reply-To: <200908190158.09623.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200908122218.13975.rjw@sisk.pl> <1250579793.5351.79.camel@rzhang-dt> <200908182201.11489.rjw@sisk.pl> <200908190158.09623.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:05:29 +0800 Message-Id: <1250643929.17853.11.camel@rzhang-dt> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1 (2.22.1-2.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 07:58 +0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday 18 August 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday 18 August 2009, Zhang Rui wrote: > > > On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 08:15 +0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > The following patches introduce a mechanism allowing us to execute device > > > > > drivers' suspend and resume callbacks asynchronously during system sleep > > > > > transitions, such as suspend to RAM. The idea is explained in the [1/1] patch > > > > > message. > > > > > > > > Changes: > > > > > > > > * Added [1/7] that fixes kerneldoc comments in drivers/base/power/main.c > > > > (this is a 2.6.32 candidate). > > > > > > > > * Added [2/7] adding a framework for representing PM link (idea described > > > > in the patch message). > > > > > > > > * [3/7] is the async resume patch (idea described in the patch message). > > > > > > > > * [4/7] is the async suspend patch. > > > > > > > > * [5/7] - [7/7] set async_suspend for devices in a few selected subsystems. > > > > > > > > The patches have been tested on HP nx6325. > > > > > > > I tried this patch set and it does work. :) > > > But unfortunately it doesn't save too much time. > > > > > > I still think that the child device should inherit its parent's > > > async_suspend flag to do the asynchronous resume more efficiently. > > > > > > or at least we should provide such an interface > > > in drivers/base/power/common.c, so that device can tell the device core > > > to inherit this flag if there is no off-tree dependency. > > > > Well, I'd prefer to identify all of the off-tree dependencies that have to be > > taken into account and handle all devices asynchronously. > > Anyway, I have tested the appended patch on top of [1/7]-[7/7] and my test box > appears to work fine with it, although it doesn't work in the "async for all" > case. > > I guess the next step will be to see which devices are not handled > asynchronously with the patch below and try to figure out which of them > break(s) things. > > Thanks, > Rafael > > --- > drivers/base/power/common.c | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/common.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/power/common.c > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/common.c > @@ -32,7 +32,11 @@ void device_pm_add(struct device *dev) > pr_debug("PM: Adding info for %s:%s\n", > dev->bus ? dev->bus->name : "No Bus", > kobject_name(&dev->kobj)); > - pm_link_add(dev, dev->parent); > + if (dev->parent) { > + pm_link_add(dev, dev->parent); > + if (dev->parent->power.async_suspend) > + dev->power.async_suspend = true; > + } to use this, we must make sure that device_enable_async_suspend is called before any of its child device being registered, right? should we check this in device_enable_async_suspend? or at least we should add the comments stating this issue. thanks, rui > device_pm_list_add(dev); > } >