On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Personally, I think we need to be able to suspend computers even when > > there are some unconsumed type-ahead characters in the input buffer. > > But that's merely an implementation detail. > > For us, the key that will turn the screen back on could be in this buffer. Why do you have this fixation on the screen? Forget about the screen and consider the system as a whole. If the keyboard is enabled for wakeup, then typing a key _will_ wake the system up from suspend -- provided the key was typed after the system went to sleep. It's silly to think that a key which was typed before the computer was suspended should cause it to wake up. > > And I think this is a big mistake. It makes sense to have locks for > > blocking auto suspend, but it does not make sense to prevent the user > > from putting his own computer to sleep. > > If we go to sleep while the keypad wakelock is locked, then the keypad > can no longer wake the system up. Note that this is specific to a > keypad driver that scans the keypad matrix in software. A keyboard > that generates an interrupt on every key change does not need its own > wakelock. Are you sure about this? IIRC, you said earlier that your keyboard generates an interrupt on a key press only when no other keys are already pressed. Okay -- so imagine the system suspends while a key is pressed. Pressing another key won't generate an interrupt and hence won't wake up the system. But releasing all the keys and then pressing one _will_ generate an interrupt and so will wake up the system. I don't see any problem with this. > Also, consider the case where the user presses the power button to go > to sleep. Before this sleep request has finished a phone call comes > in. The driver gets an interrupt, enqueues the message and locks a > wakelock to make sure user-space gets a chance to process the message. > If we ignore this wakelock, the phone will either not ring at all, or > it will ring later when the device wakes up for some other reason. For situations like this, the driver can simply refuse to suspend. You don't need to use a wakelock. In fact, if you did use a wakelock the behavior would be very strange. The user presses the power button, an instant later a call comes in, the device doesn't go to sleep, the user answers the call, and as soon as he hangs up (perhaps 10 minutes later) the wakelock is released and the device immediately goes to sleep! Not what the user would expect. > There is a class of applications where we do want the behaviour you > describe, but so far all of them also require the screen to stay on. Again this fixation with the screen. Forget about the screen! > This is handled entirely by our user-space framework which also has > other options (like keeping the keypad backlight on). > > > For example: Suppose some program happens to hold a wakelock, perhaps > > because of a simple bug, when the user closes the laptop lid and throws > > the laptop into a backpack. We don't want the computer to remain awake > > under those circumstances! > > If the program hold the wakelock because of a bug we don't want the > computer on, but if it operating correctly we do. _I_ don't. I want my device to suspend itself when I tell it to. Nothing is more annoying than a machine that doesn't turn itself off when told to do so. > Since we don't have > a good way to detect if the program locked the wakelock because of a > bug, we assume it is correct and honor the request. We have debugging > interfaces to report how often and for how long wakelocks are locked. > We also do not allow applications to use wakelocks unless they have > the required permission. I admit that in a properly-operating system there won't be any wakelocks held because of bugs. But there might be wakelocks held for other reasons, and I don't want _them_ to interfere when I suspend the machine either. > > In fact, it would be a good idea to inform drivers (by passing a > > particular pm_message_t argument to the suspend method) whether a > > particular suspend was initiated by the user or as an auto suspend. In > > some cases a driver might very well want to allow one while preventing > > the other. > > I'm not sure this would be useful. We don't have any drivers that only > need their wakelock to prevent auto suspend. Maybe you do but you don't realize it. :-) And even if you don't, maybe other people do. > And, every pm_suspend > call is the result of unlocking the last wakelock. Not true. What if all the wakelocks are already unlocked when the user writes "mem" to /sys/power/state? > > So what this example really shows is how wakelocks can be used to > > prevent auto suspend from kicking back in the moment a keystroke is > > received, before userspace has even had a chance to decide whether or > > not to turn auto suspend off. That's how you should describe it -- not > > as a way of preventing keystrokes from waking the system up. > > I was trying to show that user-space decides which keys allow the > system to wake up. From the kernels point of view, every key causes a > wakeup, but if user-space decides that the key should not wake the > system, the system will go back to sleep as soon as possible (when all > wakelocks are unlocked). This paragraph is an excellent example of the muddiness of your thinking. Userspace does _not_ decide which keys allow the system to wake up. _All_ keys cause the system to wake up; userspace then decides which ones should cause the system to go right back into suspend. But you don't need wakelocks to do this. You can get the same effect without them, just by running a program that writes "mem" (not "auto-mem"!) to /sys/power/state whenever it sees a keystroke it doesn't like. So this example does not illustrate the power of wakelocks. > The user-space notion of suspend matches the early-suspend state. Then call it "early-suspend"! Don't call it "suspend" or "the user-space notion of suspend". > I > consider early-suspend another stage, not a different concept. The > difference between early-suspend and suspend is similar to the > difference between device suspend and sysdev suspend. What would you > call the the first stage of suspend that we have added? "Early-suspend" is an okay name. However I have the impression that you want to prolong the early-suspend stage, and sometimes even go back to full power directly from early-suspend. There's nothing wrong with that; just make it clear that this is what you're doing. In fact, I get the impression that much of what you're talking about has to do with providing ways to short-circuit a complete suspend and go directly from early-suspend back to full power. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
