On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I think Arve's concern was the representation of the "I care, but only >> a little" or "just low enough to ensure threads must run" level which >> is what suspend blockers would map to (low enough to ensure we >> shouldn't halt the world but not necessarily implying a hard latency >> constraint beyond that). > > That's why I suggested "manyana" (can't get accents for mañana in a > define) or perhaps "dreckly"[1]. They are both words that mean "at some > point" but in a very very vague and 'relax it'll happen eventually' sense. > > More importantly it's policy. It's a please meet this constraint guide > to the PM layer - not a you must do as say even if its stupid. Huh? > >> > They fix a general problem in terms of a driver specific item. We end up >> > making changes around the tree but we make everyone happy not just >> > Android. Also we are isolating policy properly. The apps and drivers say >> > "I have these needs", the power manager figures out how to meet them. >> >> That makes sense -- and as I've mentioned elsewhere, we're really not >> super picky about naming -- if it turns out that >> wakelocks/suspendblockers were shorthand for "request a qos constraint >> that ensures that threads are running", we'll be able to get things >> done just as well as we do now. > > Cool. I think they are or at least they are close enough that nobody will > notice the join ;) > >> > Where it gets ugly is if you start trying to have drivers giving an app a >> > guarantee which the app then magically has to know to dispose of. >> >> Yeah -- which is something we've avoided in the existing model with >> overlapping wakelocks during handoff between domains. > > I'm not sure avoided is the right description - its there in all its > identical ugliness in wakelock magic > > If you treat QoS guarantees as a wakelock for your purposes (which is > just fine, drivers and apps give you policy, you use it how you like) > then you could write the paragraph below substituting the word > 'guarantee' for 'wakelock' So in that sense the mess is the same because > in both cases you are trying to suspend active tasks rather than asking > the task to behave and then taking remedial action with offenders. > >> - input service is select()ing on input devices >> - when select() returns it grabs a wakelock, reads events, passes them >> on, releases the wakelock >> - the event subsystem can then safely drop its "should be running >> threads" constraint as soon as the last event is read because it has >> no queues for userspace to drain, but the overlapping wakelock >> prevents the system from immediately snapping back to sleep > > The conventional PC model is 'we don't go back into sleep proper fast > enough for that race to occur'. This is the same as saying these two threads don't run often enough to need a mutex around their critical section. Just because you have not been bitten by the race yet, does not mean it does not exist. > It's hard to see how you change it. An If each layer prevents suspend while it knows there are pending events you don't have a race. Suspend blockers lets you do this. > app->device "thank you for that event, I enjoyed it very much and have > finished with it" message moves the underlying event management and QoS > knowledge into he driver proper but doesn't really change the interface. > Yes you can do this, and it it how the android alarm driver works, but we found the select()/poll(), block suspend, read event, process event then unblock suspend sequence cleaner (especially for interfaces that can return more than one event at a time). Kernel suspend blocker lets you implement the alarm driver model, adding user-space suspend blockers lets you implement the second. >> > If you are prepared to exclude untrusted apps from perfectly reliable >> > event reporting (ie from finger to application action) that doesn't seem >> > to be a neccessity anyway. >> >> Currently in the Android userpace only trusted (system) apps can >> directly obtain wakelocks -- arbitrary apps obtain them via rpc to a >> trusted system service (which ensures the app has been granted >> permission to do this and tracks usage for accountability to >> user/developer). > > Clearly that would continue to work out. > > Alan > [1] Dreckly being used in Cornwall, as one friend put it 'Like manãna but > without that dreadful sense of urgency' > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
