Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] PM / wakeup: show wakeup sources stats in sysfs | Date | Thu, 04 Jul 2019 12:31:24 +0200 |
| |
On Friday, June 28, 2019 5:10:40 PM CEST Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 03:53:35PM -0700, Tri Vo wrote: > > Userspace can use wakeup_sources debugfs node to plot history of suspend > > blocking wakeup sources over device's boot cycle. This information can > > then be used (1) for power-specific bug reporting and (2) towards > > attributing battery consumption to specific processes over a period of > > time. > > > > However, debugfs doesn't have stable ABI. For this reason, expose wakeup > > sources statistics in sysfs under /sys/power/wakeup_sources/<name>/ > > > > Embedding a struct kobject into struct wakeup_source changes lifetime > > requirements on the latter. To that end, change deallocation of struct > > wakeup_source using kfree to kobject_put(). > > > > Change struct wakelock's wakeup_source member to a pointer to decouple > > lifetimes of struct wakelock and struct wakeup_source for above reason. > > > > Introduce CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_STATS that enables/disables showing wakeup > > source statistics in sysfs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tri Vo <trong@android.com> > > Ok, this looks much better, but I don't like the use of a "raw" kobject > here. It is much simpler, and less code, to use 'struct device' > instead. > > As proof, I reworked the patch to do just that, and it saves over 50 > lines of .c code, which is always nice :)
Thanks for taking the time to do that!
> Attached below is the reworked code, along with the updated > documentation file. It creates devices in a virtual class, and you can > easily iterate over them all by looking in /sys/class/wakeup/.
That actually is nice - no need to add anything under /sys/power/.
> Note, I'm note quite sure you need all of the changes you made in > kernel/power/wakelock.c when you make the structure contain a pointer to > the wakeup source and not the structure itself, but I just went with it > and got it all to build properly.
I'm not really sure about it either.
> Also note, I've not actually tested this at all, only built it, so I > _strongly_ suggest that you test this to make sure it really works :) > > What do you think?
I agree with the direction. :-)
Cheers!
| |