Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sunday 20 December 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > > It's too early to come to this sort of conclusion (i.e., that suspend
> > > and resume react very differently to an asynchronous approach).  Unless
> > > you have some definite _reason_ for thinking that resume will benefit
> > > more than suspend, you shouldn't try to generalize so much from tests
> > > on only two systems.
> > 
> > In fact I have one reason.  Namely, the things that drivers do on suspend and
> > resume are evidently quite different and on these two systems I was able to
> > test they apparently took different amounts of time to complete.
> > 
> > The very fact that on both systems resume is substantially longer than suspend,
> > even if all devices are suspended and resumed synchronously, is quite
> > interesting.
> 
> Yes, it is.  But it doesn't mean that suspend won't benefit from 
> asynchronicity; it just means that the benefits might not be as large 
> as they are for resume.

Agreed, although that rises the question whether they are sufficiently
significant.  I guess time will tell.  With the i8042 done asynchronously they
are IMO.

BTW, what's the right place to call device_enable_async_suspend() for USB
devices?

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