On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:04:28 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 18 November 2013 11:09, viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 18 November 2013 03:07, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Sunday, November 17, 2013 10:27:43 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > >>> Okay.. Even these notifiers would be fine for me. To make things more clear > >>> before I start implementing them: > >>> - What about implementing syscore's suspend_prepare and post_suspend? > >> > >> I'm not sure how useful that would be. When would you like to execute those > >> things? > > > > Maybe after freezing userspace. So I was actually looking to move the existing > > code I wrote in PM notifiers to those.. > > > > Because in our usecase, we just want to know when suspend has started or > > resume has finished. And so we really don't need a per cpu callback. But it won't hurt I suppose? > > And so I felt probably it would be better to implement those instead of > > cpu_subsys callbacks. > > > >>> - Or you want to extend only CPU subsystems notifiers? What notifiers exactly? > >>> And at which places we want to issue them from? > >> > >> Why do we need to use notifiers? What about PM callbacks? > > > > Yeah, we don't need notifiers but callbacks. > > > >>> Okay, so you were asking about extending following list: CPU_ONLINE, > >>> CPU_UP_PREPARE, CPU_UP_CANCELED, CPU_DOWN_PREPARE, etc.. to > >>> include suspend/resume ones as well? > >> > >> No. Bus types (among other things) may provide suspend/resume callbacks for > >> handling devices. We have a bus type for CPUs, which is called cpu_subsys > >> and currently doesn't define any PM callbacks, although it could do that in > >> principle. Have you investigated that possibility? > > > > I did it now and got really confused. :) > > > > This is what my understanding is: > > - bus can register PM hooks, like suspend/resume/prepare, etc.. > > - devices under that bus would register themselves to that bus and eventually > > can get their _driver's_ callbacks called via bus hooks.. For example and I2C > > controller driver's callbacks will get called via i2c core bus.. > > > > - In case of cpu subsystem, even if cpu_subsys adds those hooks in > > drivers/base/cpu.c, then those hooks will get called for each cpu. CPU's don't > > have a driver That actually isn't correct. On systems with ACPI the processor driver binds to those devices. So the processor driver could use PM callbacks on those systems in principle. > > and so the only callbacks called are the ones of cpu_subsys. > > - How will we bind/use them with cpufreq? > > > > Our sole requirement here is to get notify cpufreq core that system > > suspend/resume/hibernation/restore has started/finished. How will that get > > fulfilled with cpu_subsys callbacks? Introduce proper drivers for processors? All of the cpuidle and cpufreq stuff currently works by using its own homegrown device registration methods etc, but surely that doesn't have to be the case? > >>> Logically speaking, all existing ones does look correct as they are more or > >>> less cpu related. But suspend/resume doesn't look any similar, Atleast to me. > >>> > >>> Suspend/resume are system's state rather than CPU's.. We aren't suspending > >>> or resuming CPUs, we are shutting them off.. So I thought maybe syscore ops > >>> is a better place (which is already used by cpufreq).. > >> > >> cpufreq uses syscore_ops for the boot CPU only and that admittedly is a hack. > > > > Why do you call it a hack? > > > >> syscore_ops is specifically for things that have to be suspended with only one > >> CPU online and with interrupts off. I'm not sure how that applies to cpufreq. > > > > Currently syscore_ops only implements suspend/resume/shutdown callbacks and > > those precisely happen the way you mentioned. Which is very much intentional. > > i.e. after removing all non-boot > > CPUs and disabling interrupts (And before bringing back all CPUs and enabling > > interrupts on resume side).. So, yes we have limitation currently.. That is a by-design limitation, mind you. > > Honestly speaking I have looked at syscore ops for the first time now, when we > > got to this problem.. I couldn't find much information about it anywhere, > > leaving the commit itself: 40dc16 > > > > And by that, this is the definition of this framework: "PM / Core: Introduce > > struct syscore_ops for core subsystems PM" That also is intentional, because it is very special. It really only is for stuff that has to be run after putting non-boot CPUs offline. > > I can see that you mentioned the limitations like single cpu and disabled > > interrupts even in the log, but I think we can enhance this framework a little bit. No. > > Also I can see that there are many users of this framework which aren't core > > frameworks but simply drivers. I don't think that was the intention behind this > > framework, but that's how others went to use it. That's not my fault. > > So, this framework exists to service core frameworks for their requirements > > about PM stages. Currently that is only limited to late suspend and early resume > > but I feel there is space for more.. > > > > For example, our current problem.. A core framework wants to prepare before > > suspend starts and after everything has resumed. Obviously that would violate > > one of the basic rules with which this was designed, but still this feature lies > > in scope of syscore. And so we can keep the limitations as is for > > suspend/resume/shutdown but not for prepare and resume_late. > > > > And I really feel even if we would be able to use cpu callbacks for > > suspend/resume, that would be a real *Hack*, because our framework doesn't want > > to get a callback for each of its devices (i.e. cpu) but a single callback at > > certain instances.. Oh really? So CPUs are not individual devices any more or what? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
