Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1171185

Re: [PATCH 2/2] PM / Domains: Avoid infinite loops in attach/detach code

From Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH 2/2] PM / Domains: Avoid infinite loops in attach/detach code
Date 2015-06-24 10:40 +0200
Message-ID <pEOnT-4zK-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <pCFf4-5FO-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <pE4uJ-5vJ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <pEvXY-33C-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <pEwr0-3Rp-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


[...]

>>>
>>> @@ -2183,6 +2191,7 @@ int genpd_dev_pm_attach(struct device *dev)
>>>  {
>>>         struct of_phandle_args pd_args;
>>>         struct generic_pm_domain *pd;
>>> +       unsigned int i;
>>>         int ret;
>>>
>>>         if (!dev->of_node)
>>> @@ -2218,10 +2227,13 @@ int genpd_dev_pm_attach(struct device *dev)
>>>
>>>         dev_dbg(dev, "adding to PM domain %s\n", pd->name);
>>>
>>> -       while (1) {
>>> +       for (i = 0; i < GENPD_RETRIES; i++) {
>>>                 ret = pm_genpd_add_device(pd, dev);
>>>                 if (ret != -EAGAIN)
>>>                         break;
>>> +
>>> +               if (i > GENPD_RETRIES / 2)
>>> +                       udelay(GENPD_DELAY_US);
>>
>> In this execution path, we retry when getting -EAGAIN while believing
>> the reason to the error are only *temporary* as we are soon waiting
>> for all devices in the genpd to be system PM resumed. At least that's
>> my understanding to why we want to deal with -EAGAIN here, but I might
>> be wrong.
>>
>> In this regards, I wonder whether it could be better to re-try only a
>> few times but with a far longer interval time than a couple us. What
>> do you think?
>
> That's indeed viable. I have no idea for how long this temporary state can
> extend.

That will depend on the system PM resume time for the devices residing
in the genpd. So, I guess we need a guestimate then. How about a total
sleep time of a few seconds?

>
>> However, what if the reason to why we get -EAGAIN isn't *temporary*,
>> because we are about to enter system PM suspend state. Then the caller
>> of this function which comes via some bus' ->probe(), will hang until
>> the a system PM resume is completed. Is that really going to work? So,
>> for this case your limited re-try approach will affect this scenario
>> as well, have you considered that?
>
> There's a limit on the number of retries, so it won't hang indefinitely.

What happens with the timer functions (like msleep()) during the
system PM suspend transition?

Kind regards
Uffe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [PATCH 2/2] PM / Domains: Avoid infinite loops in attach/detach code Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> - 2015-06-24 10:40 +0200

csiph-web