Re: [PATCH 2/5] PM / Runtime: Do not run callbacks under lock for power.irq_safe set

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday, September 12, 2011, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > The rpm_suspend() and rpm_resume() routines execute subsystem or PM
> > domain callbacks under power.lock if power.irq_safe is set for the
> > given device.  This is inconsistent with that rpm_idle() does after
> > commit 02b2677 (PM / Runtime: Allow _put_sync() from
> > interrupts-disabled context) and is problematic for subsystems and PM
> > domains wanting to use power.lock for synchronization in their
> > runtime PM callbacks.  For this reason, make runtime PM core functions
> > always release power.lock before invoking subsystem or PM domain
> 
> If power.lock is released, the transition states(resuming or suspending)
> may be observed in rpm_suspend or rpm_resume, then tasks schedule
> will be produced in these two functions,

I don't think so, because the interrupts are still off.

> so the functions below can't be
> 
>       pm_runtime_suspend()
>       pm_runtime_autosuspend()
>       pm_runtime_resume()
>       pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend()
>       pm_runtime_put_sync_autosuspend()
> 
> called in irq-off contexts safely even though irq_safe flag is set.

The patch doesn't cause rpm_suspend() and rpm_resume() to turn interrupts
on if irq_safe is set, it only causes them to release the lock (temporarily).

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/