From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: Ensure proper suspend/resume ordering
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 03:28:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1475011.GNmxQvg88W@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1509151505040.1420-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 03:18:19 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> > > There are a few things to watch out for. Since the dpm_list gets
> > > modified during system sleep transitions, we would have to make sure
> > > that nothing gets probed during those times. In principle, that's what
> > > the "prepare" stage is meant for, but there's still a race. As long as
> > > no other kernel thread (such as the deferred probing mechanism) tries
> > > to probe a device once everything has been frozen, we should be okay.
> > > But if not, there will be trouble -- after the ->prepare callback runs,
> > > the device is no longer on the dpm_list and so we don't want this patch
> > > to put it back on that list.
> >
> > Perhaps moving to the end of the list needs to be a little smarter. That
> > is it could check whether the device has been prepared for suspension or
> > not and only move when it hasn't?
>
> Maybe. But doesn't that mean it won't solve your problem completely?
>
> > Then again, shouldn't the core even prohibit new probes once the suspend
> > has been triggered? Sounds like asking for a lot of trouble if it didn't
> > ...
>
> The core prohibits new devices from being registered. It does not
> prohibit probes of existing devices, because they currently do not
> affect the dpm_list.
Which may be a mistake, because it does affect callbacks executed during
suspend/resume (after successful probe the device potentially has a different
set of PM callbacks than before).
> In general, we rely on subsystems not to do any probing once a device
> is suspended. It's probably reasonable to ask them not to do any
> probing once a device has gone through the "prepare" stage.
Right.
Question is when it should be allowed to probe again. I guess at the same
time we allow registrations to to take place again?
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-16 1:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-10 10:19 Thierry Reding
2015-09-10 10:58 ` Grygorii Strashko
2015-09-10 22:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-11 12:03 ` Thierry Reding
2015-09-11 19:01 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-11 22:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-12 17:40 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-15 0:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-15 14:23 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-16 1:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-16 13:39 ` Grygorii Strashko
2015-09-16 19:27 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-17 0:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-17 15:48 ` Grygorii Strashko
2015-09-17 23:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-18 0:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-01 18:14 ` Grygorii Strashko
2015-09-15 16:10 ` Thierry Reding
2015-09-15 19:18 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-16 1:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2015-09-16 13:38 ` Grygorii Strashko
2015-09-16 16:58 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-16 17:08 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-16 13:16 ` Thierry Reding
2015-09-16 19:22 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-17 0:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-17 2:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-17 17:02 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-17 18:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-17 21:06 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-18 0:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-18 15:55 ` Thierry Reding
2015-09-18 23:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-21 8:51 ` Thierry Reding
2015-09-21 14:34 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-22 0:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-22 1:22 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-22 0:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-17 5:40 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-09-17 18:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-17 19:21 ` Alan Stern
2015-09-11 22:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-15 15:53 ` Thierry Reding
2015-09-16 1:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-16 13:38 ` Grygorii Strashko
2015-09-17 0:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-11 14:05 ` Alan Stern
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=1475011.GNmxQvg88W@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=grygorii.strashko@ti.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®