Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sunday 06 December 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday 06 December 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 
> > > The approach you're suggesting would require modifying individual drivers which
> > > I just wanted to avoid.
> > 
> > In the init path, we had the reverse worry - not wanting to make 
> > everything (where "everything" can be some subsystem like just the set of 
> > PCI drivers, of course - not really "everything" in an absolute sense) 
> > async, and then having to try to work out with the random driver that 
> > couldn't handle it.
> > 
> > And there were _lots_ of drivers that couldn't handle it, because they 
> > knew they got woken up serially. The ATA layer needed to know about 
> > asynchronous things, because sometimes those independent devices aren't so 
> > independent at all. Which is why I don't think your approach is safe.
> 
> While the current settings are probably unsafe (like enabling PCI devices
> to be suspended asynchronously by default if there are not any direct
> dependences between them), there are provisions to make eveything safe, if
> we have enough information (which also is needed to put the required logic into
> the drivers).  The device tree represents a good deal of the dependences
> between devices and the other dependences may be represented as PM links
> enforcing specific ordering of the PM callbacks.
> 
> > Just to take an example of the whole "independent devices are not 
> > necessarily independent" thing - things like multi-port PCMCIA controllers 
> > generally show up as multiple PCI devices. But they are _not_ independent, 
> > and they actually share some registers. Resuming them asynchronously might 
> > well be ok, but maybe it's not. Who knows?
> 
> I'd say if there's a worry that the same register may be accessed concurrently
> from two different code paths, there should be some locking in place.
> 
> > In contrast, a device driver can generally know that certain _parts_ of 
> > the initialization is safe. As an example of that, I think the libata 
> > layer does all the port enumeration synchronously, but then once the ports 
> > have been identified, it does the rest async. 
> > 
> > That's the kind of decision we can sanely make when we do the async part 
> > as a "drivers may choose to do certain parts asynchronously". Doing it at 
> > a higher level sounds like a problem to me.
> 
> The difference between suspend and initialization is that during suspend we
> have already enumerated all devices and we should know how they depend on
> each other (and we really should know that if we are to actually understand how
> things work), so we can represent that information somehow and use it to do
> things at the higher level.
> 
> How to represent it is a different matter, but in principle it should be
> possible.
> 
> > > If you don't like that, we'll have to take the longer route, although 
> > > I'm afraid that will take lots of time and we won't be able to exploit 
> > > the entire possible parallelism this way.
> > 
> > Sure. But I'd rather do the safe thing. Especially since there are likely 
> > just a few cases that really take a long time.
> 
> And there are lots of small sleeps here and there that accumulate and are
> entirely avoidable.

I mean, it is avoidable to do all these sleeps sequentially.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/