lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume
Date
On Monday 23 February 2009, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
>
> > * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
> >>
> >> > I think this aspect has been well-understood during the
> >> > discussion of this topic and it's just a slightly misleading
> >> > changelog.
> >>
> >> As I was a member of that discussion I did not see that.
> >>
> >> It took me several passes through the patches to realize the
> >> goal is to allow drivers to be able to sleep while they are in
> >> their late pm shutdown routines.
> >>
> >> Why we want this I don't know. But it seems simple enough to
> >> implement, and it makes it harder to get the late pm suspend
> >> routines wrong, which is always good.
> >
> > That's not the only goal. The other goal is to further shrink a
> > particular window of suspend fragility: the irqs-disabled stage
> > of the suspend/resume sequence.
> >
> > Since suspend/resume is a mini-reboot sequence, there's a large
> > amount of code executed - and the variety of code is large as
> > well. We had repeat cases of random drivers re-enabling
> > interrupts and thus breaking other drivers - and these are nasty
> > to debug.
> >
> > So this patchset disables device IRQs centrally and serializes
> > with pending work - so there's no races with pending IRQs
> > anymore.
> >
> > The fact that we keep the timer irq running is two-fold: firstly
> > the timer code is special and not really part of the regular
> > suspend/resume sequence.
> >
> > Drivers want to take timestamps, sometimes they even want to do
> > a small usleep(), etc. Ideally the suspend/resume code is pretty
> > much _the same_ as a regular bootup (and shutdown) code - so we
> > want to provide a similar environment to how drivers initialize
> > and deinitialize, and we want to enable them to share code
> > between bootup/shutdown and suspend/resume agressively.
> >
> > So the more generic kernel environment we give these fragile
> > handlers, the better we are off in the end. Since we already had
> > IRQS_TIMER, that was just the natural thing to do.
>
> I am all for sharing code, especially if we can factor if
> we can find common factors that do the same thing.
>
> I don't know how many times I have found drivers doing something
> weird in their shutdown routines that they don't know how
> to get the device out of. The e1000 driver has shown up several
> times because it likes to suspend the device on shutdown.
>
> The fact that the methods exposed to drivers were only defined
> to be usable on the s2ram/hibernate path is something I have
> brought up on more than one occasion as a bad choice.
>
> I'm really not convinced that the rational for separating
> out the shutdown methods from the remove methods has
> been very good. That of we don't need to clean up the in-kernel
> data structures on reboot so why do something extra that can
> introduce instability.
>
> So having been watching a smaller form of this drama on the
> reboot path for several years. Having had a device method
> with fixed semantics, and not the dwm sematics of the historical
> suspend routing. I expect there is still a ways to go before
> it is simple and easy for drivers to figure out what they need
> to implement out of the confusing variety of possible device
> methods.
>
> >> > The new suspend code does not rely on truly disabling IRQs
> >> > on the low level. The purpose is to not get IRQs to drivers
> >> > - which might crash/hang/race/misbehave.
> >>
> >> Reasonable. I expect one of the problems with drivers getting
> >> it wrong is that the interface is too complex for mortal
> >> humans to understand.
> >
> > The suspend/resume state machine certainly used to be a piece of
> > code that makes a seasoned kernel developer weep in fear.
> >
> > That has changed drastically in the past few months. The
> > suspend+hibernation logic got unified (at least as far as driver
> > methods go), and all the flow and ordering has been cleaned up
> > and has been made more robust.
>
> I will have to look again. My impression is that overloading
> a single method is part of what got us into this mess in the
> first place.
>
> No that I don't see things getting better.
>
> > What makes s2ram fragile is not human failure but the
> > combination of a handful of physical property:
> >
> > 1) Psychology: shutting the lid or pushing the suspend button is
> > a deceivingly 'simple' action to the user. But under the
> > hood, a ton of stuff happens: we deinitialize a lot of
> > things, we go through _all hardware state_, and we do so in a
> > serial fashion. If just one piece fails to do the right
> > thing, the box might not resume. Still, the user expects this
> > 'simple' thing to just work, all the time. No excuses
> > accepted.
> >
> > 2) Length of code: To get a successful s2ram sequence the kernel
> > runs through tens of thousands of lines of code. Code which
> > never gets executed on a normal box - only if we s2ram. If
> > just one step fails, we get a hung box.
> >
> > 3) Debuggability: a lot of s2ram code runs with the console off,
> > making any bugs hard to debug. Furthermore we have no
> > meaningful persistent storage either for kernel bug messages.
> > The RTC trick of PM_DEBUG works but is a very narrow channel
> > of information and it takes a lot of time to debug a bug via
> > that method.
>
> Yep that is an issue.
>
> > The combination of these factors really makes up for a perfect
> > storm in terms of kernel technology: we have this
> > very-deceivingly-simple-looking but complex-and-rarely-executed
> > piece of code, which is very hard to debug.
>
> And much of this as you are finding with this piece of code
> is how the software was designed rather then how the software
> needed to be.
>
> > Even just one of these factors would be enough to make an
> > otherwise healthy subsystem fragile - no wonder s2ram has been a
> > problem ever since it existed in the upstream kernel.
> >
> > So now we need just one thing: patience and more of the same
> > good stuff that happened lately.
>
> I think there has been some good progress, and so I am happy
> to be patient. I will still mention on occasion what it
> seems we are doing wrong. Unfortunately I don't have time
> to do a lot more than that.
>
> >> > Still, it might make sense to not just use the ->disable
> >> > sequence but primarily the ->shutdown irqchip method (when
> >> > it's available in the irqchip).
> >>
> >> Disable seems fine to me. This is interesting in the context
> >> of all of the irqs that will when masked show up somewhere
> >> else (think boot interrupts).
> >>
> >> > While we obviously cannot turn off the PIC that delivers
> >> > timer IRQs at this stage - there's no theoretical reason why
> >> > the suspend sequence couldnt power down some secondary PICs
> >> > as well - in some arch code, or maybe even in the generic
> >> > driver suspend sequence if the device tree is structured
> >> > carefully enough so that the PIC gets turned off last.
> >>
> >> If the point is simply to prevent deliver of irqs to the
> >> drivers I don't see the point of anything more than what the
> >> patch does now.
> >
> > ... except for the usecase i described above. Say some PIC sits
> > on a piece of silicon which gets turned off. I'm not talking
> > about x86 but some custom device. We really dont want that IRQ
> > line to send half of an IRQ message (un-ACK-ed) when it gets
> > turned off. So physically 'suspending' all IRQ lines does make a
> > certain level of long-term sense.
>
> Good point. We will loose both level and edge triggered events
> that occur between suspending the irqs and restoring them but
> that is inevitable. So we might as well call shutdown and totally
> turn off the irqs if we can.
>
> I don't know where in the state machine this is getting called but
> I would suggest doing this before we shutdown cpus.

This is the plan. In fact, I'm going to do this in the next patch after the
$subject one has been tested and found acceptable.

Thanks,
Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-23 12:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans