Re: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33)

[Alan Stern]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> >
> > And likewise in try_wait_for_completion().  It looks like a bug.  Maybe 
> > these routines were not intended to be called with interrupts disabled, 
> > but that requirement doesn't seem to be documented.  And it isn't a 
> > natural requirement anyway.
> 
> 'complete()' is supposed to be callable from interrupts, but the waiting 
> ones aren't. But 'complete()' is all you should need to call from 
> interrupts, so that's fine.

And try_wait_for_completion()?  The fact that it doesn't block makes it
interrupt-safe.  What's the point of having an interrupt-safe routine
that you can't call from within interrupt handlers?

Even if nobody uses it that way now, there's no guarantee somebody
won't attempt it in the future.


> So I think completions should work, if done right. That whole "make the 
> parent wait for all the children to complete" is fine in that sense. And 
> I'll happily take such an approach if my rwlock thing doesn't work.

In principle the two approaches could be combined: Add an rwsem for use 
by children and a completion for off-tree[*] use.  But that would 
certainly be overkill.  Looping over children doesn't take a 
tremendous amount of time compared to a full system suspend.

Alan Stern

[*] "Off-tree" isn't really an appropriate term; these devices aren't 
"off" the tree.  "Non-tree" would be better.

--
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/