[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] PM / Wakeirq: Add minimal device wakeirq helper functions
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Tony Lindgren wrote:

> > > + struct wakeirq_source *wirq = _wirq;
> > > + irqreturn_t ret = IRQ_NONE;
> > > +
> > > + /* We don't want RPM_ASYNC or RPM_NOWAIT here */
> > > + if (pm_runtime_suspended(wirq->dev)) {
> >
> > What if the device is resumed on a different CPU right here?
> Good point, sounds like we need to do this in some pm_runtime
> function directly for the locking.
> > > + pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(wirq->dev);
> > > + pm_runtime_resume(wirq->dev);
> >
> > Calling this with disabled interrupts is a bad idea in general.
> > Is the device guaranteed to have power.irq_safe set?
> Well right now it's using threaded irq, and I'd like to get rid of
> the pm_runtime calls in the regular driver interrupts completely.
> We need to ensure the device runtime_resume is completed before
> returning IRQ_HANDLED here.

In general, runtime_resume methods are allowed to sleep. They can't be
used in an interrupt handler top half unless the driver has
specifically promised they are IRQ-safe. That's what Rafael was
getting at.

Of course, if this routine is a threaded-irq bottom half then there's
no problem.

> > I guess what you want to call here is pm_request_resume() and
> > I wouldn't say that calling pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() on a
> > suspended device was valid.
> I'll verify again, but I believe the issue was that without doing
> mark_last_busy here the device falls back asleep right away.
> That probably should be fixed in pm_runtime in general if that's
> the case.

It's up to the subsystem to handle this. For example, the USB
subsystem's runtime-resume routine calls pm_runtime_mark_last_busy.

> Considering the above, should we add a new function something like
> pm_resume_complete() that does not need irq_safe set but does
> not return until the device has completed resume?

That doesn't make sense. You're asking for a routine that is allowed
to sleep but can safely be called in interrupt context.

Alan Stern

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-06 20:21    [W:0.077 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site