Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] time: alarmtimer: Use TASK_FREEZABLE to cleanup freezer handling | Date | Wed, 01 Mar 2023 23:11:50 +0100 |
| |
On Mon, Feb 27 2023 at 20:06, John Stultz wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:03 PM John Stultz <jstultz@google.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Feb 20 2023 at 19:11, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi wrote: >> > +static int alarmtimer_pm_notifier_fn(struct notifier_block *bl, unsigned long state, >> > + void *unused) >> > +{ >> > + switch (state) { >> > + case PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE: >> > + case PM_POST_HIBERNATION: >> > + atomic_set(&alarmtimer_wakeup, 0); >> > + break; >> > + } >> > + return NOTIFY_DONE; >> >> But here, we're setting the alarmtimer_wakeup count to zero if we get >> PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE or PM_POST_HIBERNATION notifications? >> And Michael noted we need to add PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE and >> PM_POST_SUSPEND there for this to seemingly work.
Yup. I missed those when sending out that hack.
> So Thomas's notifier method of zeroing at the begining of suspend and > tracking any wakeups after that point makes more sense now. It still > feels a bit messy, but I'm not sure there's something better.
I'm not enthused about it either.
> My only thought is this feels a little bit like its mirroring what the > pm_wakeup_event() logic is supposed to do. Should we be adding a > pm_wakeup_event() to alarmtimer_fired() to try to prevent suspend from > occuring for 500ms or so after an alarmtimer has fired so there is > enough time for it to be re-armed if needed?
The question is whether this can be called unconditionally and how that interacts with the suspend logic. Rafael?
Thanks,
tglx
| |