Clear pm_abort_suspend counter in case a wakeup is detected during
hibernation process. If this counter isn't reset, it'll affect the
next hibernation cycle and next time hibernation will not happen as
pm_abort_suspend is still positive.
Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
---
drivers/base/power/main.c | 2 ++
kernel/cpu.c | 1 +
kernel/power/hibernate.c | 5 ++++-
kernel/power/process.c | 1 +
4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
index 5760abb25b591..84e76f8df1e02 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
@@ -1642,6 +1642,7 @@ static void device_suspend_late(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state, bool asy
goto Complete;
if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
+ pm_wakeup_clear(0);
WRITE_ONCE(async_error, -EBUSY);
goto Complete;
}
@@ -1887,6 +1888,7 @@ static void device_suspend(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state, bool async)
if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
dev->power.direct_complete = false;
+ pm_wakeup_clear(0);
WRITE_ONCE(async_error, -EBUSY);
goto Complete;
}
diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
index db9f6c539b28c..74c9f6b4947dd 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -1921,6 +1921,7 @@ int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary)
if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
pr_info("Wakeup pending. Abort CPU freeze\n");
+ pm_wakeup_clear(0);
error = -EBUSY;
break;
}
diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
index e15907f28c4cd..1f6b60df45d34 100644
--- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
+++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
@@ -349,8 +349,10 @@ static int create_image(int platform_mode)
goto Enable_irqs;
}
- if (hibernation_test(TEST_CORE) || pm_wakeup_pending())
+ if (hibernation_test(TEST_CORE) || pm_wakeup_pending()) {
+ pm_wakeup_clear(0);
goto Power_up;
+ }
in_suspend = 1;
save_processor_state();
@@ -660,6 +662,7 @@ int hibernation_platform_enter(void)
goto Enable_irqs;
if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
+ pm_wakeup_clear(0);
error = -EAGAIN;
goto Power_up;
}
diff --git a/kernel/power/process.c b/kernel/power/process.c
index dc0dfc349f22b..e935b27a04ae0 100644
--- a/kernel/power/process.c
+++ b/kernel/power/process.c
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(bool user_only)
break;
if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
+ pm_wakeup_clear(0);
wakeup = true;
break;
}
--
2.47.3On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 7:45 PM Muhammad Usama Anjum
<usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> Clear pm_abort_suspend counter in case a wakeup is detected during
> hibernation process. If this counter isn't reset, it'll affect the
> next hibernation cycle and next time hibernation will not happen as
> pm_abort_suspend is still positive.
>
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/power/main.c | 2 ++
> kernel/cpu.c | 1 +
> kernel/power/hibernate.c | 5 ++++-
> kernel/power/process.c | 1 +
> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> index 5760abb25b591..84e76f8df1e02 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> @@ -1642,6 +1642,7 @@ static void device_suspend_late(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state, bool asy
> goto Complete;
>
> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
> WRITE_ONCE(async_error, -EBUSY);
> goto Complete;
> }
> @@ -1887,6 +1888,7 @@ static void device_suspend(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state, bool async)
>
> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> dev->power.direct_complete = false;
> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
> WRITE_ONCE(async_error, -EBUSY);
> goto Complete;
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index db9f6c539b28c..74c9f6b4947dd 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -1921,6 +1921,7 @@ int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary)
>
> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> pr_info("Wakeup pending. Abort CPU freeze\n");
> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
> error = -EBUSY;
> break;
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> index e15907f28c4cd..1f6b60df45d34 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> @@ -349,8 +349,10 @@ static int create_image(int platform_mode)
> goto Enable_irqs;
> }
>
> - if (hibernation_test(TEST_CORE) || pm_wakeup_pending())
> + if (hibernation_test(TEST_CORE) || pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
> goto Power_up;
> + }
>
> in_suspend = 1;
> save_processor_state();
> @@ -660,6 +662,7 @@ int hibernation_platform_enter(void)
> goto Enable_irqs;
>
> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
> error = -EAGAIN;
> goto Power_up;
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/power/process.c b/kernel/power/process.c
> index dc0dfc349f22b..e935b27a04ae0 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/process.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/process.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(bool user_only)
> break;
>
> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
> wakeup = true;
> break;
> }
> --
I don't think pm_wakeup_clear() needs to be called in so many places.
Any why isn't it sufficient to call it in freeze_processes()? For
suspend, it is sufficient, so what's different about hibernation in
that respect?
Hi Rafael,
Thank you for reviewing.
On 11/24/25 11:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 7:45 PM Muhammad Usama Anjum
> <usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote:
>>
>> Clear pm_abort_suspend counter in case a wakeup is detected during
>> hibernation process. If this counter isn't reset, it'll affect the
>> next hibernation cycle and next time hibernation will not happen as
>> pm_abort_suspend is still positive.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/base/power/main.c | 2 ++
>> kernel/cpu.c | 1 +
>> kernel/power/hibernate.c | 5 ++++-
>> kernel/power/process.c | 1 +
>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
>> index 5760abb25b591..84e76f8df1e02 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
>> @@ -1642,6 +1642,7 @@ static void device_suspend_late(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state, bool asy
>> goto Complete;
>>
>> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
>> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
>> WRITE_ONCE(async_error, -EBUSY);
>> goto Complete;
>> }
>> @@ -1887,6 +1888,7 @@ static void device_suspend(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state, bool async)
>>
>> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
>> dev->power.direct_complete = false;
>> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
>> WRITE_ONCE(async_error, -EBUSY);
>> goto Complete;
>> }
>> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
>> index db9f6c539b28c..74c9f6b4947dd 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
>> @@ -1921,6 +1921,7 @@ int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary)
>>
>> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
>> pr_info("Wakeup pending. Abort CPU freeze\n");
>> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
>> error = -EBUSY;
>> break;
>> }
>> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
>> index e15907f28c4cd..1f6b60df45d34 100644
>> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
>> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
>> @@ -349,8 +349,10 @@ static int create_image(int platform_mode)
>> goto Enable_irqs;
>> }
>>
>> - if (hibernation_test(TEST_CORE) || pm_wakeup_pending())
>> + if (hibernation_test(TEST_CORE) || pm_wakeup_pending()) {
>> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
>> goto Power_up;
>> + }
>>
>> in_suspend = 1;
>> save_processor_state();
>> @@ -660,6 +662,7 @@ int hibernation_platform_enter(void)
>> goto Enable_irqs;
>>
>> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
>> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
>> error = -EAGAIN;
>> goto Power_up;
>> }
>> diff --git a/kernel/power/process.c b/kernel/power/process.c
>> index dc0dfc349f22b..e935b27a04ae0 100644
>> --- a/kernel/power/process.c
>> +++ b/kernel/power/process.c
>> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(bool user_only)
>> break;
>>
>> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
>> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
>> wakeup = true;
>> break;
>> }
>> --
>
> I don't think pm_wakeup_clear() needs to be called in so many places.
>
> Any why isn't it sufficient to call it in freeze_processes()? For
> suspend, it is sufficient, so what's different about hibernation in
> that respect?
It seems this patch was written by me when [1] was added which removed the
unconditional call pm_wakeup_clear(0) from freeze_processes(). It was later
reverted [2].
I've removed this patch and tested again to find out:
- try_to_freeze_tasks() gets called from freeze_process() after
unconditional clearing of pm_wakeup. So pm_wakeup doesn't get cleared
until next hibernation or any other similar operation. So for hibernation
cancellation this patch isn't required. I'll drop it.
But shouldn't this wakeup event be consumed without waiting for next hibernation
(or similar operation to happen)?
[1] 56a232d93cea ("PM: sleep: Make pm_wakeup_clear() call more clear") - Aug 20
[2] 79816d4b9e9b ("Revert "PM: sleep: Make pm_wakeup_clear() call more clear"") - Oct 22
---
Thanks,
Usama
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 10:54 AM Muhammad Usama Anjum
<usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> Thank you for reviewing.
>
> On 11/24/25 11:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 7:45 PM Muhammad Usama Anjum
> > <usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Clear pm_abort_suspend counter in case a wakeup is detected during
> >> hibernation process. If this counter isn't reset, it'll affect the
> >> next hibernation cycle and next time hibernation will not happen as
> >> pm_abort_suspend is still positive.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/base/power/main.c | 2 ++
> >> kernel/cpu.c | 1 +
> >> kernel/power/hibernate.c | 5 ++++-
> >> kernel/power/process.c | 1 +
> >> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> >> index 5760abb25b591..84e76f8df1e02 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> >> @@ -1642,6 +1642,7 @@ static void device_suspend_late(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state, bool asy
> >> goto Complete;
> >>
> >> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> >> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
> >> WRITE_ONCE(async_error, -EBUSY);
> >> goto Complete;
> >> }
> >> @@ -1887,6 +1888,7 @@ static void device_suspend(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state, bool async)
> >>
> >> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> >> dev->power.direct_complete = false;
> >> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
> >> WRITE_ONCE(async_error, -EBUSY);
> >> goto Complete;
> >> }
> >> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> >> index db9f6c539b28c..74c9f6b4947dd 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> >> @@ -1921,6 +1921,7 @@ int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary)
> >>
> >> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> >> pr_info("Wakeup pending. Abort CPU freeze\n");
> >> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
> >> error = -EBUSY;
> >> break;
> >> }
> >> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> >> index e15907f28c4cd..1f6b60df45d34 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> >> @@ -349,8 +349,10 @@ static int create_image(int platform_mode)
> >> goto Enable_irqs;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - if (hibernation_test(TEST_CORE) || pm_wakeup_pending())
> >> + if (hibernation_test(TEST_CORE) || pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> >> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
> >> goto Power_up;
> >> + }
> >>
> >> in_suspend = 1;
> >> save_processor_state();
> >> @@ -660,6 +662,7 @@ int hibernation_platform_enter(void)
> >> goto Enable_irqs;
> >>
> >> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> >> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
> >> error = -EAGAIN;
> >> goto Power_up;
> >> }
> >> diff --git a/kernel/power/process.c b/kernel/power/process.c
> >> index dc0dfc349f22b..e935b27a04ae0 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/power/process.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/power/process.c
> >> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(bool user_only)
> >> break;
> >>
> >> if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> >> + pm_wakeup_clear(0);
> >> wakeup = true;
> >> break;
> >> }
> >> --
> >
> > I don't think pm_wakeup_clear() needs to be called in so many places.
> >
> > Any why isn't it sufficient to call it in freeze_processes()? For
> > suspend, it is sufficient, so what's different about hibernation in
> > that respect?
>
> It seems this patch was written by me when [1] was added which removed the
> unconditional call pm_wakeup_clear(0) from freeze_processes(). It was later
> reverted [2].
OK, I see.
> I've removed this patch and tested again to find out:
> - try_to_freeze_tasks() gets called from freeze_process() after
> unconditional clearing of pm_wakeup. So pm_wakeup doesn't get cleared
> until next hibernation or any other similar operation. So for hibernation
> cancellation this patch isn't required. I'll drop it.
>
> But shouldn't this wakeup event be consumed without waiting for next hibernation
> (or similar operation to happen)?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Consuming an event is not related to calling pm_wakeup_clear().
pm_wakeup_clear() is related to wakeup IRQ handling, see pm_system_irq_wakeup().
This takes place after IRQs have been suspended (that's what the
"noirq" suspend phase is about).
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.