lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10] PM: Measure suspend and resume times for individual devices (was: Re: [PATCH 2/6] PM: Asynchronous resume of devices)
Date
On Monday 31 August 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Monday 31 August 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sunday 30 August 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 30 August 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 29 Aug 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I only wanted to say that the advantage is not really that "big". :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I must agree, 14 threads isn't a lot. But at the moment that number is
> > > > > > > > random, not under your control.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's not directly controlled, but there are some interactions between the
> > > > > > > async threads, the main threads and the async framework that don't allow this
> > > > > > > number to grow too much.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IMO it sometimes is better to allow things to work themselves out, as long as
> > > > > > > they don't explode, than to try to keep everything under strict control. YMMV.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For testing purposes it would be nice to have a one-line summary for
> > > > > > each device containing a thread ID, start timestamp, end timestamp, and
> > > > > > elapsed time. With that information you could evaluate the amount of
> > > > > > parallelism and determine where the bottlenecks are. It would give a
> > > > > > much more detailed picture of the entire process than the total time of
> > > > > > your recent patch 9.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course it would. I think I'll implement it.
> > > >
> > > > OK, below is a patch for that. It only prints the time elapsed, because the
> > > > timestamps themselves can be obtained from the usual kernel timestamping.
> > > >
> > > > It's on top of all the previous patches.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Rafael
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > > > Subject: PM: Measure suspend and resume times for individual devices
> > > >
> > > > If verbose PM debugging is enabled, measure and print the time of
> > > > suspending and resuming of individual devices.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/base/power/main.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > kernel/power/swsusp.c | 2 -
> > > > 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > > > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > > > @@ -442,11 +442,11 @@ static bool pm_op_started(struct device
> > > > */
> > > > int pm_time_elapsed(struct timeval *start, struct timeval *stop)
> > > > {
> > > > - s64 elapsed_centisecs64;
> > > > + s64 elapsed_msecs64;
> > > >
> > > > - elapsed_centisecs64 = timeval_to_ns(stop) - timeval_to_ns(start);
> > > > - do_div(elapsed_centisecs64, NSEC_PER_SEC / 100);
> > > > - return elapsed_centisecs64;
> > > > + elapsed_msecs64 = timeval_to_ns(stop) - timeval_to_ns(start);
> > > > + do_div(elapsed_msecs64, NSEC_PER_SEC / 1000);
> > > > + return elapsed_msecs64;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static char *pm_verb(int event)
> > > > @@ -476,7 +476,7 @@ static char *pm_verb(int event)
> > > > static void dpm_show_time(struct timeval *start, struct timeval *stop,
> > > > pm_message_t state, const char *info)
> > > > {
> > > > - int centisecs = pm_time_elapsed(start, stop);
> > > > + int centisecs = pm_time_elapsed(start, stop) / 10;
> > > >
> > > > printk(KERN_INFO "PM: %s%s%s of devices complete in %d.%02d seconds\n",
> > > > info ? info : "", info ? " " : "", pm_verb(state.event),
> > > > @@ -497,6 +497,33 @@ static void pm_dev_err(struct device *de
> > > > kobject_name(&dev->kobj), pm_verb(state.event), info, error);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +#ifdef DEBUG
> > > > +static void device_show_time(struct timeval *start, struct device *dev,
> > > > + pm_message_t state, char *info)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct timeval stop;
> > > > + int msecs;
> > > > +
> > > > + do_gettimeofday(&stop);
> > > > + msecs = pm_time_elapsed(start, &stop);
> > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "PID %d: %s%s%s complete in %d.%03d seconds\n",
> > > > + task_pid_nr(current), info ? info : "", info ? " " : "",
> > > > + pm_verb(state.event), msecs / 1000, msecs % 1000);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +#define TIMER_DECLARE(timer) struct timeval timer
> > > > +#define TIMER_START(timer) do { \
> > > > + do_gettimeofday(&timer); \
> > > > + } while (0)
> > > > +#define TIMER_STOP(timer, dev, state, info) do { \
> > > > + device_show_time(&timer, dev, state, info); \
> > > > + } while (0)
> > > > +#else /* !DEBUG */
> > > > +#define TIMER_DECLARE(timer)
> > > > +#define TIMER_START(timer) do { } while (0)
> > > > +#define TIMER_STOP(timer, dev, state, info) do { } while (0)
> > > > +#endif /* !DEBUG */
> > > > +
> > > > /*------------------------- Resume routines -------------------------*/
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > @@ -510,7 +537,9 @@ static void pm_dev_err(struct device *de
> > > > static int __device_resume_noirq(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state)
> > > > {
> > > > int error = 0;
> > > > + TIMER_DECLARE(timer);
> > > >
> > > > + TIMER_START(timer);
> > > > TRACE_DEVICE(dev);
> > > > TRACE_RESUME(0);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -523,6 +552,7 @@ static int __device_resume_noirq(struct
> > > > wake_up_all(&dev->power.wait_queue);
> > > >
> > > > TRACE_RESUME(error);
> > > > + TIMER_STOP(timer, dev, state, "EARLY");
> > > > return error;
> > >
> > > Hm, these CPP macros are rather ugly. Why is there a need for
> > > the TIMER_DECLARE() wrapper - if a proper inline function is
> > > used there's no need for that.
> >
> > I need a variable to be declared so that I can save the "start"
> > timestamp in it. I don't need the variable if DEBUG is unset,
> > though.
> >
> > How would you do that without using a macro? Or #ifdef #endif
> > block that would be uglier IMO (which is why I didn't do that)?
>
> Well, why not use an inline function like i suggested? [which does
> nothing in the !enabled case] You can keep the local variable always
> defined.

Well, I used the macros _exactly_ because I didn't want to keep the local
variable always defined.

Now, if you think that adding several useless bytes to the stack frame is OK,
perhaps it can be always defined. However, IMnsHO that would be
(a) confusing (why define a variable you don't use) and (b) wasteful.

Perhaps the names of the macros should be directly related to debugging?

Best,
Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-31 17:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans