On Monday 31 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 10:10 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > Not using suspend is exactly the point. As Alan has argued, propagating
> > > suspend blockers up into all regions of userspace will take much longer
> > > than fixing the hardware.
> >
> > Strange, that's not what I heard as the possible solution. I thought he
> > was advocating expressing the kernel side of suspend blockers as QoS
> > constraints. Once we have QoS constraints correctly done in the kernel,
> > userspace still has to express its requirements. If the requirements
> > are static, then they can be done from policy files or in some other
> > static way but if they're dynamic, they'll still have to be in the
> > applications ... in about the same places the android wakelocks are.
>
> That's wrong. You only need the explicit dynamic QoS constraints for
> applications which follow the scheme:
>
> while (1) {
> if (event_available())
> process_event();
> else
> do_useless_crap_which_consumes_power();
> }
>
> which need the following annotation:
>
> while (1) {
> block_suspend();
> if (event_available()) {
> process_event();
> unblock_suspend();
> } else {
> unblock_suspend();
> do_useless_crap_which_consumes_power();
> }
> }
>
> Plus the kernel counterpart of drivers which take the suspend blocker
> in the interrupt handler and release it when the event queue is empty.
>
> So that's done for making polling event handling power "efficient".
>
> Even worse, you need the same "annotation" for non polling mode and it
> enforces the use of select() because you cannot take a suspend blocker
> across a blocking read() without adding more invasive interactions to
> the kernel..
>
> So the "sane" app looks like:
>
> while (1) {
> select();
> block_suspend();
> process_events();
> unblock_suspend();
> }
>
> I'm really tired of arguing that this promotion of "programming style"
> is the worst idea ever, so let's look how you can do the same thing
> QoS based.
>
> s/block_suspend()/qos(INTERACTIVE)/ and
> s/unblock_suspend()/qos(NONE)/ and
> s/block_magic()/qos_magic()/ in the drivers.
>
> Yes, it's mostly the same, with a subtle difference:
>
> While android can use it in the big hammer approach to disable the
> existing user initiated suspend via /sys/power/state, the rest of the
> world can benefit as well in various ways.
>
> - Sane applications which use a blocking event wait can be handled
> with a static QoS setting simply because a blocking read relies on
> the QoS state of the underlying I/O system.
>
> - Idle based suspend as the logical consequence of idle states is
> just a matter of QoS constraint based decisions.
>
> - Untrusted apps can be confined in cgroups. The groups are set to
> QoS(None) when user land decides that it's time to safe power
> (e.g. screen lock kicks in)
>
> - QoS states can block applications from I/O when the I/O system is
> set to a state which is exclusive.
>
> - ...
>
> So that allows to use the same mechanism for more than the android
> sledge hammer approach and confines the controversial use cases into
> android specific files without adding a hard to maintain user space
> interface which would prevent or at least make it hard to do some of
> the above mentioned things which we want to see implemented.
I generally agree.
I think the Alan Stern's recent proposal goes along these lines, but it has
the advantage of being a bit more specific. ;-)
Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
