On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:09:49 +0100 >> > Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:08:06PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: >> >> >> >> > This is I believe robust (and has been implemented on some non x86 >> >> > boxes). It depends on not forcing running tasks into suspend. That is the >> >> > key. >> >> >> >> We've already established that ACPI systems require us to force running >> >> tasks into suspend. How do we avoid the race in that situation? >> > >> > Android phones do not have ACPI. Embedded platforms do not have ACPI. MID >> > x86 devices do not have ACPI. >> >> Android does not only run on phones. It is possible that no android devices >> have ACPI, but I don't know that for a fact. What I do know is that people >> want to run Android on x86 hardware and supporting suspend could be very >> benficial. > > (If there's a sane framework then we'll fix x86 to fit into it and will deal > with quirks.) > >> > I would imagine the existing laptops will handle power management limited >> > by the functionality they have available. Just like any other piece of >> > hardware. >> >> I think existing laptops (and desktops) can benefit from opportunistic >> suspend support. If opportunistic suspend is used for auto-sleep after >> inactivity instead of forced suspend, the user space suspend blocker api >> will allow an application to delay this auto sleep until for instance a >> download completes. This part could also be done with a user-space IPC call, >> but having a standard kernel interface for it may make it more common. A >> less common case, but more critical, is RTC alarms. I know my desktops can >> wakeup at a specific time by programming an RTC alarm, but without suspend >> blockers how do you ensure that the system does not suspend right after the >> alarm triggered? I have a system that wakes up at specific times requested >> by my DVR application, but I cannot use this system for anything else unless >> I manually turn off the DVR application's auto-sleep feature. With suspend >> blockers and something like the android alarm driver, I could use this >> system for more than one application that have scheduled tasks and it would >> be more usable for interactive applications. > > I really like the level of detail and care that went into suspend-blockers, > and i think the Android solution is very mature in terms of functionality > offered to users. > > In terms of bringing this depth of functionality and control to the upstream > kernel, what do you think about Alan's QoS scheme, described in: > > <20100528001514.28e593ef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > ? > > It's in essence suspend-blockers on steroids. It consists of two main > components: > > - Unify the 'suspended' state into the regular chain of idle states, and > create a single, coherent and transparent way we handle system idleness. > > - Give apps a QoS attribute that allows them to express how long they can > afford to wait for a wakeup. (A downloading app would set it to say 50msecs, > and thus the kernel would know it automatically which method of idleness is > still achievable. If all currently running apps have a max(QoS) attribute > of infinite, then the kernel can suspend for an unlimited amount of time.) > > AFAICS, and i have read through your suspend-blocker usecases, this should > handle all the usecases you listed - and some more. (please yell if that's not > so) > > Suspend-blockers are equivalent to: 'app sets idle QoS latency to 0 msecs'. > > (And on x86, for BIOS/CPU combos that allow it we can implement this scheme > too.) > > Thoughts? Tying the QoS attribute to apps does not work (all proposals I have seen have race conditions), but replacing every suspend blocker with unique QoS object will work, since is the same thing as what suspend blockers provide. I think replacing suspend blockers with artificial latency requirements is a bad idea though, since we use them to ensure a specific level of functionality (tasks, timers and interrupts operate normally). If we get a more generic constraint framework, suspend blockers may possibly be absorbed by this, but I think the current implementation is useful as is (it could even be useful to someone working on a generic constraints framework). -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
