Re: [PATCH update x2] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices (rev. 13)

On Sunday 09 August 2009, Alan Stern wrote:

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

 How exactly would you like to implement it
instead?

As described above.  The barrier would be equivalent to
pm_runtime_get_noresume followed by pm_runtime_disable except that it
wouldn't actually disable anything.

OK, I can do that, but the only difference between that and the above sequence
of three calls will be the possibility to call resume helpers while the
"barrier" is in progress.

Exactly.  In other words, if the driver tries to carry out a resume
while the barrier is running, the resume won't get lost.  Whereas with 
the temporarily-disable approach, it _would_ get lost.

quoted

Allowing runtime PM helpers to be run during system sleep transitions would be
problematic IMHO, because the run-time PM 'states' are not well defined at that
time.  Consequently, the rules that the PM helpers follow do not really hold
during system sleep transitions.

The workqueue will be frozen, so runtime PM helpers will run only if
they are invoked more or less directly by the driver (i.e., through
pm_runtime_resume, ...).  I think we should allow drivers to do what
they want, especially between the "prepare" and "suspend" stages.

Well, I'm not sure if that's a good idea, but also I have no good techincal
arguments against it at the moment.  And I'm too tired to argue. ;-)

quoted

Also, in principle the device driver's ->suspend() routine  (the non-runtime
one), or even the ->prepare() callback, may notice that the remote wake-up has
happened and put the device back into the full power state and return -EBUSY.

It may.  But then again, it may not -- it may depend on the runtime PM  
core to make sure that resume requests get forwarded appropriately.

Furthermore, if you disable runtime PM _before_ calling the prepare 
method, that leaves a window during which the driver has no reason to 
realize that anything unusual is going on.

quoted

Still, we can allow runtime PM requests to be put into the workqueue during
system sleep transitions, to be executed after the resume (or in case the
suspend fails, that will make the action described in the previous paragraph
somewhat easier).  It seems we'd need a separate flag for it, though.

If every device gets resumed at the end of a system sleep, even the
ones that were runtime-suspended before the sleep began, then there's
no reason to preserve requests in the workqueue.  But if
previously-suspended devices don't get resumed at the end of a system
sleep, then we should allow requests to remain in the workqueue.

We also should preserve the requests in case the system sleep transition
fails.

In the end, it's probably safer and easier just to leave the workqueue 
alone -- freeze and unfreeze it, but don't meddle with its contents.

The whole question of remote wakeup vs. runtime suspend vs. system 
sleep is complicated, and people haven't dealt with all the issues yet.

Agreed.
 

For instance, it seems quite likely that with some devices you would 
want to enable remote wakeup during runtime suspend but not during 
system sleep.  We don't have any good way to do this.

Yes, for now we have to assume that any device with wakeup enabled is a
wakeup device.

OK, I'll post the new version of the patch shortly.  Please check if the
barrier mechanism is implemeted and used correctly.

Best,
Rafael