lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.
    Date
    On Sunday 30 May 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
    > On Fri, 28 May 2010 21:04:53 -0700
    > Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@android.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:52 PM, mark gross <640e9920@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:23:54PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
    > > >> On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:20:51 +0100
    > > >> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 02:57:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > >> >
    > > >> > > I fail to see why. In both cases the woken userspace will contact a
    > > >> > > central governing task, either the kernel or the userspace suspend
    > > >> > > manager, and inform it there is work to be done, and please don't
    > > >> > > suspend now.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > Thinking about this, you're right - we don't have to wait, but that does
    > > >> > result in another problem. Imagine we get two wakeup events
    > > >> > approximately simultaneously. In the kernel-level universe the kernel
    > > >> > knows when both have been handled. In the user-level universe, we may
    > > >> > have one task schedule, bump the count, handle the event, drop the count
    > > >> > and then we attempt a suspend again because the second event handler
    > > >> > hasn't had an opportunity to run yet. We'll then attempt a suspend and
    > > >> > immediately bounce back up. That's kind of wasteful, although it'd be
    > > >> > somewhat mitigated by checking that right at the top of suspend entry
    > > >> > and returning -EAGAIN or similar.
    > > >> >
    > > >>
    > > >> (I'm coming a little late to this party, so excuse me if I say something that
    > > >> has already been covered however...)
    > > >>
    > > >> The above triggers a sequence of thoughts which (When they settled down) look
    > > >> a bit like this.
    > > >>
    > > >> At the hardware level, there is a thing that we could call a "suspend
    > > >> blocker". It is an interrupt (presumably level-triggered) that causes the
    > > >> processor to come out of suspend, or not to go into it.
    > > >>
    > > >> Maybe it makes sense to export a similar thing from the kernel to user-space.
    > > >> When any event happens that would wake the device (and drivers need to know
    > > >> about these already), it would present something to user-space to say that
    > > >> the event happened.
    > > >>
    > > >> When user-space processes the event, it clears the event indicator.
    > > >
    > > > we did I proposed making the suspend enabling a oneshot type of thing
    > > > and all sorts of weak arguments came spewing forth. I honestly couldn't
    > > > tell if I was reading valid input or fanboy BS.
    > > >
    > >
    > > Can you be more specific? If you are talking about only letting
    > > drivers abort suspend, not block it, then the main argument against
    > > that is that you are forcing user-space to poll until the driver stops
    > > aborting suspend (which according to people arguing against us using
    > > suspend would make the power-manager a "bad" process). Or are you
    > > talking about blocking the request from user-space until all other
    > > suspend-blockers have been released and then doing a single suspend
    > > cycle before returning. This would not be as bad, but it would force
    > > the user-space power manager to be multi-threaded since it now would
    > > have way to cancel the request. Either way, what problem are you
    > > trying to solve by making it a one-shot request?
    > >
    >
    > I don't know exactly what Mark has in mind, but I would advocate 1-shot
    > simply because what we currently have (echo mem > /sys/power/state) is
    > 1-shot and I don't believe you need to do more than fix the bugs in that.
    >
    > Your question of whether to abort or block suspend in central I think - the
    > answer to that question will make or break a possible solution.
    >
    > Simply aborting the suspend cannot work as you rightly say - the suspend
    > daemon would then spin until other user-space processes get into action.
    > Simply blocking while there are any unhandled 'wakeup events' - then aborting
    > if there were any - is how I think it should work. However as it
    > doesn't work that way now I don't think it is safe to make it work that way
    > unconditionally. If we did we could find that existing configurations always
    > block suspend indefinitely with would clearly be a regression.
    >
    > I think we still need some sort of "suspend_prepare". This would have two
    > particular effects.
    > 1/ it sets the start time for interpreting the word "were" above. i.e. the
    > suspend would abort of there were any unhandled wakeup events since the
    > "suspend_prepare" was issued.
    > 2/ It would allow unhandled wakeup events to abort the suspend. If no
    > suspend_prepare had been issued, then only "new" wakeup events would
    > be allowed to abort the suspend (i.e. the old racy version of suspend).
    >
    > So the suspend daemon does:
    >
    > wait for there to be no user-space suspend blocks
    > issue suspend_prepare
    > check there are still no suspend blocks
    > if there are, loop (possibly issue suspend_abort if needed)
    > issue suspend request
    > loop
    >
    > processes that handle wakeup events would
    >
    > poll for event to be available
    > request suspend-block
    > consume event
    > release suspend-block
    > loop
    >
    > (where consuming the event would quite possibly cause some other
    > suspend-block to become active - e.g. it might request that the display
    > be unlocked which would block suspends for a time).

    Well, please have a look at the Alan Stern's proposal here:
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/29/77

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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-30 21:53    [W:0.030 / U:64.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site