Hi Shuah,
> On Sep 19, 2024, at 11:36 AM, Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 9/17/24 16:48, Yifei Liu wrote:
>> We recently notice that the step_after_suspend_test would
>> fail on our plenty devices. The test believesit failed to
>
> What are "plenty devices"
> recently noticed?
We have seen this issue on more than one platforms, including bare metal device and virtual machine.
> Typo - believesit?
Yes, missing a space here. It should be
The test believes itself ffailed to enter suspend state.
Thank you for pointing out.
>
>> enter suspend state with
>> $ sudo ./step_after_suspend_test
>> TAP version 13
>> Bail out! Failed to enter Suspend state
>> However, in the kernel message, I indeed see the system get
>> suspended and then wake up later.
>> [611172.033108] PM: suspend entry (s2idle)
>> [611172.044940] Filesystems sync: 0.006 seconds
>> [611172.052254] Freezing user space processes
>> [611172.059319] Freezing user space processes completed (elapsed 0.001 seconds)
>> [611172.067920] OOM killer disabled.
>> [611172.072465] Freezing remaining freezable tasks
>> [611172.080332] Freezing remaining freezable tasks completed (elapsed 0.001 seconds)
>> [611172.089724] printk: Suspending console(s) (use no_console_suspend to debug)
>> [611172.117126] serial 00:03: disabled
>> --- some other hardware get reconnected ---
>> [611203.136277] OOM killer enabled.
>> [611203.140637] Restarting tasks ...
>> [611203.141135] usb 1-8.1: USB disconnect, device number 7
>> [611203.141755] done.
>> [611203.155268] random: crng reseeded on system resumption
>> [611203.162059] PM: suspend exit
>> After investigation, I notice that for the code block
>> if (write(power_state_fd, "mem", strlen("mem")) != strlen("mem"))
>> ksft_exit_fail_msg("Failed to enter Suspend state\n");
>> The write will return -1 and errno is set to 16 (device busy).
>> It should be caused by the write function is not successfully returned
>> before the system suspend and the return value get messed when waking up.
>> As a result, It may be better to check the time passed of those few instructions
>> to determine whether the suspend is executed correctly for it is pretty hard to
>> execute those few lines for 4 seconds, or even more if it is not long enough.
>
> I don't think this is the right fix. Can you change this to do echo instead.
> It does the same thing, but it goes through sysfs interface instead of direct
> write:
>
> ret = system("echo mem > /sys/power/state”);
Sure, I can do that.
>
>> Fixes: bfd092b8c2728 ("selftests: breakpoint: add step_after_suspend_test")
>> Reported-by: Sinadin Shan <sinadin.shan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Yifei Liu <yifei.l.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> .../selftests/breakpoints/step_after_suspend_test.c | 9 +++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/step_after_suspend_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/step_after_suspend_test.c
>> index dfec31fb9b30d..d615f091e5bae 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/step_after_suspend_test.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/step_after_suspend_test.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>> #include <sys/timerfd.h>
>> #include <sys/types.h>
>> #include <sys/wait.h>
>> +#include <time.h>
>> #include "../kselftest.h"
>> @@ -133,6 +134,7 @@ void suspend(void)
>> int timerfd;
>> int err;
>> struct itimerspec spec = {};
>> + clock_t t;
>> if (getuid() != 0)
>> ksft_exit_skip("Please run the test as root - Exiting.\n");
>> @@ -152,8 +154,11 @@ void suspend(void)
>> if (err < 0)
>> ksft_exit_fail_msg("timerfd_settime() failed\n");
>
> I don't think you will need to add clock() code. timerfd_settime()
> sets the time for 5 seconds and you can simply extend the alarm
> time.
>
> There needs to be some logic to check timer elapse and poll the
> timer_fd
Yes, it is also a choice to check the remaining time of the timer. We could use timerfd_gettime() to get the remaining time. The timer would not rearm because the it_interval value is not set (set to 0). Then if the remaining time has both 0 or seconds and nano-seconds (tv_sec and tv_nsec), it should point out the time goes for at least 5 seconds. If the system fails to enter suspend state and waked up by the timer, it should not take 5 whole seconds or more to get to the check line.
Would you prefer this methods?
>
>> - if (write(power_state_fd, "mem", strlen("mem")) != strlen("mem"))
>> - ksft_exit_fail_msg("Failed to enter Suspend state\n");
>> + t = clock();
>> + write(power_state_fd, "mem", strlen("mem"));
>> + t = clock()-t;
>> + if ((int)(t) < 4)
>> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("Failed to enter Suspend state %d\n",errno);
>> close(timerfd);
>> close(power_state_fd);
>
> thanks,
> — Shuah
Thank you very much
Yifei
