Re: [PATCH][Alternative][RFC] PM / Runtime: Introduce driver runtimePM work routine

[Alan Stern]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > I guess the best we can say is that if you call pm_runtime_barrier()  
> > after updating the dev_pm_ops method pointers then after the barrier
> > returns, the old method pointers will not be invoked and the old method
> > routines will not be running.  So we need an equivalent guarantee with
> > regard to the pm_runtime_work pointer.  (Yes, we could use a better 
> > name for that pointer.)
> > 
> > Which means the code in the patch isn't quite right, because it saves 
> > the pm_runtime_work pointer before calling rpm_resume().  Maybe we 
> > should avoid looking at the pointer until rpm_resume() returns.
> 
> Yes, we can do that.
> 
> Alternatively, we can set power.work_in_progress before calling
> rpm_resume(dev, 0) (i.e. regard the resume as a part of the work) to make
> the barrier wait for all of it to complete.

Yep, that would work.  In fact, I did it that way in the proposed code 
posted earlier in this thread.  (But that was just on general 
principles, not because I had this particular race in mind.)

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/