lwn.git/kernel/irq/pm.c, branch v4.1.12

genirq / PM: Add flag for shared NO_SUSPEND interrupt lines

2015-03-04T20:42:19+00:00

It currently is required that all users of NO_SUSPEND interrupt lines pass the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag when requesting the IRQ or the WARN_ON_ONCE() in irq_pm_install_action() will trigger. That is done to warn about situations in which unprepared interrupt handlers may be run unnecessarily for suspended devices and may attempt to access those devices by mistake. However, it may cause drivers that have no technical reasons for using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND to set that flag just because they happen to share the interrupt line with something like a timer. Moreover, the generic handling of wakeup interrupts introduced by commit 9ce7a25849e8 (genirq: Simplify wakeup mechanism) only works for IRQs without any NO_SUSPEND users, so the drivers of wakeup devices needing to use shared NO_SUSPEND interrupt lines for signaling system wakeup generally have to detect wakeup in their interrupt handlers. Thus if they happen to share an interrupt line with a NO_SUSPEND user, they also need to request that their interrupt handlers be run after suspend_device_irqs(). In both cases the reason for using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is not because the driver in question has a genuine need to run its interrupt handler after suspend_device_irqs(), but because it happens to share the line with some other NO_SUSPEND user. Otherwise, the driver would do without IRQF_NO_SUSPEND just fine. To make it possible to specify that condition explicitly, introduce a new IRQ action handler flag for shared IRQs, IRQF_COND_SUSPEND, that, when set, will indicate to the IRQ core that the interrupt user is generally fine with suspending the IRQ, but it also can tolerate handler invocations after suspend_device_irqs() and, in particular, it is capable of detecting system wakeup and triggering it as appropriate from its interrupt handler. That will allow us to work around a problem with a shared timer interrupt line on at91 platforms. Link: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=142252777602084&w=2 Link: http://marc.info/?t=142252775300011&r=1&w=2 Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/15/552 Reported-by: Boris Brezillon Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Mark Rutland

genirq: Simplify wakeup mechanism

2014-09-01T11:48:59+00:00

Currently we suspend wakeup interrupts by lazy disabling them and check later whether the interrupt has fired, but that's not sufficient for suspend to idle as there is no way to check that once we transitioned into the CPU idle state. So we change the mechanism in the following way: 1) Leave the wakeup interrupts enabled across suspend 2) Add a check to irq_may_run() which is called at the beginning of each flow handler whether the interrupt is an armed wakeup source. This check is basically free as it just extends the existing check for IRQD_IRQ_INPROGRESS. So no new conditional in the hot path. If the IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED flag is set, then the interrupt is disabled, marked as pending/suspended and the pm core is notified about the wakeup event. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner [ rjw: syscore.c and put irq_pm_check_wakeup() into pm.c ] Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

genirq: Mark wakeup sources as armed on suspend

2014-09-01T11:48:51+00:00

This allows us to utilize this information in the irq_may_run() check without adding another conditional to the fast path. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

genirq: Avoid double loop on suspend

2014-09-01T11:48:29+00:00

We can synchronize the suspended interrupts right away. No need for an extra loop. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

genirq: Move MASK_ON_SUSPEND handling into suspend_device_irqs()

2014-09-01T11:48:21+00:00

There is no reason why we should delay the masking of interrupts whose interrupt chip requests MASK_ON_SUSPEND to the point where we check the wakeup interrupts. We can do it right at the point where we mark the interrupt as suspended. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

genirq: Make use of pm misfeature accounting

2014-09-01T11:48:13+00:00

Use the accounting fields which got introduced for snity checking for the various PM options. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

genirq: Add sanity checks for PM options on shared interrupt lines

2014-09-01T11:48:05+00:00

Account the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and IRQF_RESUME_EARLY actions on shared interrupt lines and yell loudly if there is a mismatch. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

genirq: Move suspend/resume logic into irq/pm code

2014-09-01T11:47:57+00:00

No functional change. Preparatory patch for cleaning up the suspend abort functionality. Update the comments while at it. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

irq: Enable all irqs unconditionally in irq_resume

2013-11-25T21:20:02+00:00

When the system enters suspend, it disables all interrupts in suspend_device_irqs(), including the interrupts marked EARLY_RESUME. On the resume side things are different. The EARLY_RESUME interrupts are reenabled in sys_core_ops->resume and the non EARLY_RESUME interrupts are reenabled in the normal system resume path. When suspend_noirq() failed or suspend is aborted for any other reason, we might omit the resume side call to sys_core_ops->resume() and therefor the interrupts marked EARLY_RESUME are not reenabled and stay disabled forever. To solve this, enable all irqs unconditionally in irq_resume() regardless whether interrupts marked EARLY_RESUMEhave been already enabled or not. This might try to reenable already enabled interrupts in the non failure case, but the only affected platform is XEN and it has been confirmed that it does not cause any side effects. [ tglx: Massaged changelog. ] Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan Acked-by-and-tested-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek Cc: Cc: Cc: Cc: Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1385388587-16442-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

genirq: Do not consider disabled wakeup irqs

2012-05-04T21:38:50+00:00

If an wakeup interrupt has been disabled before the suspend code disables all interrupts then we have to ignore the pending flag. Otherwise we would abort suspend over and over as nothing clears the pending flag because the interrupt is disabled. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Cc: NeilBrown