[linux-pm] Helping drivers to work without the freezer
Alan Stern
stern at rowland.harvard.edu
Sat Mar 8 14:57:01 PST 2008
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > My idea is instead to have the PM core provide a new pair of routines
> > for use by drivers. Something like "thread_not_sleepable()" and
> > "thread_sleepable()".
> >
> > The first routine would be called by a driver before starting to do
> > I/O, while no locks are held. If a sleep transition had already
> > started, the routine would block until the sleep was over. Otherwise,
> > the thread would be marked with a NOT_SLEEPABLE flag until the second
> > routine was called. When the PM core wanted to start a system sleep
> > it would have to check whether any threads were marked NOT_SLEEPABLE,
> > and wait until none of them were.
> >
> > This could make drivers a little simpler. It would mean less code to
> > modify, and it would remove one entry from the messy I/O vs. unbind vs.
> > suspend synchronization problem.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Well, this is what the current freezer does with respect to kernel threads,
> only the name of the flag is different. ;-)
They aren't exactly the same, although they certainly are similar. The
difference lies in what happens when a task calls set_freezable()
after a system sleep has begun; its TIF_FREEZE flag doesn't immediately
get set.
Also, the current freezer doesn't offer a clear_freezable() routine.
> You basically need something very similar to the current freezer in order
> to implement the "PM core would have to check whether any threads were marked
> NOT_SLEEPABLE, and wait until none of them were" functionality.
Another approach would be to use something like an rwsem. Hopefully
without all the cache-line-bouncing overhead on SMP systems.
Alan Stern
More information about the linux-pm
mailing list