On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Ramesh Thomas <ramesh.tho...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 2017-10-25 at 00:16:25 -0700, Ramesh Thomas wrote:
>> On 2017-10-24 at 13:35:05 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
>> >
>>
>> [cut]
>>
>> > @@ -63,10 +60,14 @@ static bool default_suspend_ok(struct de
>> >
>> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->power.lock, flags);
>> >
>> > - if (constraint_ns < 0)
>> > + if (constraint_ns == 0)
>> > return false;
>> >
>> > - constraint_ns *= NSEC_PER_USEC;
>> > + if (constraint_ns == PM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY_NO_CONSTRAINT)
>> > + constraint_ns = -1;
>> > + else
>> > + constraint_ns *= NSEC_PER_USEC;
>> > +
>> > /*
>> > * We can walk the children without any additional locking, because
>> > * they all have been suspended at this point and their
>> > @@ -76,14 +77,19 @@ static bool default_suspend_ok(struct de
>> > device_for_each_child(dev, &constraint_ns,
>> > dev_update_qos_constraint);
>> >
>> > - if (constraint_ns > 0) {
>> > - constraint_ns -= td->suspend_latency_ns +
>> > - td->resume_latency_ns;
>> > - if (constraint_ns == 0)
>> > - return false;
>> > + if (constraint_ns < 0) {
>> > + /* The children have no constraints. */
>> > + td->effective_constraint_ns =
>> > PM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY_NO_CONSTRAINT;
>> > + td->cached_suspend_ok = true;
>> > + } else {
>> > + constraint_ns -= td->suspend_latency_ns +
>> > td->resume_latency_ns;
>> > + if (constraint_ns > 0) {
>> > + td->effective_constraint_ns = constraint_ns;
>> > + td->cached_suspend_ok = true;
>> > + } else {
>> > + td->effective_constraint_ns = 0;
>>
>> If the resume latency constraint was increased after this,
>> default_power_down_ok may not consider the new value. default_suspend_ok
>> needs
>> to get called first if the new value is to be read.
>>
>> This is because dev_pm_qos_read_value will get called only if
>> effective_constraint_ns has a negative value. default_suspend_ok initializes
>> effective_constraint_ns with -1 before doing the calculations.
>> default_power_down_ok does not initialize it to -1 and uses
>> the existing value.
>>
>> A comment in default_power_down_ok implies it is not necessary to call
>> default_suspend_ok before calling default_power_down_ok. In that case,
>> default_power_down_ok should be able to get the new latency constraint value.
>>
>
> The design expects default_suspend_ok would always be called before
> default_power_down_ok if the device was made "active" after start. Changes
> to resume latency constraint will not be considered if it happened between
> suspend and power down of a device. However, that is the design and not a
> behavior introduced by this patch.
>
> Acked-by: Ramesh Thomas <ramesh.tho...@intel.com>
Cool, thanks!
I'll go ahead and push this to Linus, then.
Thanks,
Rafael
