Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.
From: Alan Stern
Date: Mon May 24 2010 - 21:35:02 EST
On Mon, 24 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> > Wakeup events can be lost in at least three different ways:
> >
> > 1. A hardware signal (such as an IRQ) gets ignored.
> >
> > 2. The hardware event occurs, but without effect since the
> > kernel thread that would handle the event has been frozen.
> > The event just ends up sitting in a queue somewhere until
> > something else wakes up the system.
> >
> > 3. The hardware event occurs and the kernel handles it fully,
> > but the event propagates to userspace for further handling
> > and the user program is already frozen.
> >
> > 1 is a hardware configuration failure (for example, it might happen as
> > a result of using edge-triggered IRQs instead of level-triggered) and
> > is outside the scope of this discussion.
> >
> > 2 generally represents a failure of the core PM subsystem, or a failure
> > of some other part of the kernel to use the PM core correctly. In
> > theory we should be able to fix such mistakes. Right now I'm aware of
> > at least one possible failure scenario that could be fixed fairly
> > easily.
> >
> > 3 is the type of failure that suspend blockers were really meant to
> > handle, particularly the userspace suspend-blocker API.
> I don't see a big difference between 2 and 3. You can use suspend
> blockers to handle either.
You can, but they aren't necessary. If 2 were the only reason for
suspend blockers, I would say they shouldn't be merged.
Whereas 3, on the other hand, can _not_ be handled by any existing
mechanism. 3 is perhaps the most important reason for using suspend
blockers.
Alan Stern
--
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/