Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Dec 19, 2009, at 2:29 PM, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Saturday 19 December 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday 19 December 2009, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:43:29PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday 16 December 2009, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 03:11:05AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

Give a real example that matters.

I'll try. Let -> denote child-parent relationships and assume dpm_list looks
like this:

No.

I mean something real - something like

- if you run on a non-PC with two USB buses behind non-PCI controllers.

- device xyz.

If this applies to _resume_ only, then I agree, but the Arjan's data clearly show that serio devices take much more time to suspend than USB.

I mean in general - something where you actually have hard data that some device really needs anythign more than my one-liner, and really _needs_
some complex infrastructure.

Not "let's imagine a case like xyz".

As I said I would, I made some measurements.

I measured the total time of suspending and resuming devices as shown by the
code added by this patch:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/rafael/suspend-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=c1b8fc0a8bff7707c10f31f3d26bfa88e18ccd94;hp=087dbf5f079f1b55cbd3964c9ce71268473d5b67
on two boxes, HP nx6325 and MSI Wind U100 (hardware-wise they are quite
different and the HP was running 64-bit kernel and user space).

I took four cases into consideration:
(1) synchronous suspend and resume (/sys/power/pm_async = 0)
(2) asynchronous suspend and resume as introduced by the async branch at:
   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/rafael/suspend-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/async
(3) asynchronous suspend and resume like in (2), but with your one-liner setting
   the power.async_suspend flag for PCI bridges on top
(4) asynchronous suspend and resume like in (2), but with an extra patch that
   is appended on top

For those tests I set power.async_suspend for all USB devices, all serio input devices, the ACPI battery and the USB PCI controllers (to see the impact of the
one-liner, if any).

I carried out 5 consecutive suspend-resume cycles (started from under X) on each box in each case, and the raw data are here (all times in milliseconds):
http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/data/async-suspend.pdf

The summarized data are below (the "big" numbers are averages and the +/-
numbers are standard deviations, all in milliseconds):

           HP nx6325        MSI Wind U100

sync suspend        1482 (+/- 40)    1180 (+/- 24)
sync resume        2955 (+/- 2)    3597 (+/- 25)

async suspend        1553 (+/- 49)    1177 (+/- 32)
async resume        2692 (+/- 326)    3556  (+/- 33)

async+one-liner suspend    1600 (+/- 39)    1212 (+/- 41)
async+one-liner resume    2692 (+/- 324)    3579 (+/- 24)

async+extra suspend    1496 (+/- 37)    1217 (+/- 38)
async+extra resume    1859 (+/- 114)    1923 (+/- 35)

So, in my opinion, with the above set of "async" devices, it doesn't make sense to do async suspend at all, because the sync suspend is actually
the fastest on both machines.

I think the async suspend is not asynchronous enough then - what kind of time do you get if you simply comment out call to psmouse_reset () in drivers/input/mouse/psmouse-base.c:psmouse_cleanup()? (Just for testing
purposes only, I don't think we want to do that by default.)

The problem apparently is that the i8042 suspend/resume is synchronous.

Do you think it's safe to mark it as asynchronous?


Umm.. there lie dragons. There is an implicit relationship between i8042 and PNP/ACPI devices representing keyboard and mouse ports, and I am not sure how happy i8042 (and most importantly the BIOS) will be if they get shut down before i8042. Also there is EC which is in theory independent
but in practice not so much.

I see.

Is this possible to identify ACPI devices that should wait for the i8042
suspend and that should be waited for by it on resume?

Wait, if you look at the logs at

http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/data/nx6325/
http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/data/wind/

you'll see that the i8042 suspend is called before any ACPI devices are suspended anyway. In fact, it is suspended right after its serio children
which is very early in the suspend sequence.

Right, and we do want to "suspend" i8042 (well, reset to the initial state we found it at bootup) before touching ACPI.

If i8042 is async, given the fact that psmouse reset takes a long time, it is possible that we start suspending PNP before we are done with i8042.

--


Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux