>-----Original Message----- >From: Arve Hjønnevåg [mailto:arve@xxxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 6:11 PM >To: James Bottomley >Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki; Matthew Garrett; Thomas Gleixner; Peter Zijlstra; >tytso@xxxxxxx; LKML; Florian Mickler; Linux PM; Linux OMAP Mailing List; >felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxx; Alan Cox; Alan Stern; Gross, Mark; Neil Brown >Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) > >On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:36 PM, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxx> >wrote: >> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 00:24 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday 01 June 2010, James Bottomley wrote: >>> > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 14:51 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:21:09PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > You're the one mentioning x86, not me. I already explained that >some >>> > > > MSM hardware (the G1 for example) has lower power consumption in >S3 >>> > > > (which I'm using as an ACPI shorthand for suspend to ram) than any >>> > > > suspend from idle C state. The fact that current x86 hardware has >the >>> > > > same problem may be true, but it's not entirely relevant. >>> > > >>> > > As long as you can set a wakeup timer, an S state is just a C state >with >>> > > side effects. The significant one is that entering an S state stops >the >>> > > process scheduler and any in-kernel timers. I don't think Google >care at >>> > > all about whether suspend is entered through an explicit transition >or >>> > > something hooked into cpuidle - the relevant issue is that they want >to >>> > > be able to express a set of constraints that lets them control >whether >>> > > or not the scheduler keeps on scheduling, and which doesn't let them >>> > > lose wakeup events in the process. >>> > >>> > Exactly, so my understanding of where we currently are is: >>> >>> Thanks for the recap. >>> >>> > 1. pm_qos will be updated to be able to express the android >suspend >>> > blockers as interactivity constraints (exact name TBD, but >>> > probably /dev/cpu_interactivity) >>> >>> I think that's not been decided yet precisely enough. I saw a few ideas >>> here and there in the thread, but which of them are we going to follow? >> >> Well, android only needs two states (block and don't block), so that >> gets translated as 2 s32 values (say 0 and INT_MAX). I've seen defines >> like QOS_INTERACTIVE and QOS_NONE (or QOS_DRECKLY or QOS_MANANA) to >> describe these, but if all we're arguing over is the define name, that's >> progress. > >I think we need separate state constraints for suspend and idle low >power modes. On the msm platform only a subset of the interrupts can >wake up from the low power mode, so we block the use if the low power >mode from idle while other interrupts are enabled. We do not block >suspend however if those interrupts are not marked as wakeup >interrupts. Most constraints that prevent suspend are not hardware >specific and should not prevent entering low power modes from idle. In >other words we may need to prevent low power idle modes while allowing >suspend, and we may need to prevent suspend while allowing low power >idle modes. > >It would also be good to not have an implementation that gets slower >and slower the more clients you have. With binary constraints this is >trivial. [mtg: ] agreed. > >> >> The other piece they need is the suspend block name, which comes with >> the stats API, and finally we need to decide what the actual constraint >> is called (which is how the dev node gets its name) ... >> >>> > 2. pm_qos will be updated to be callable from atomic context >>> > 3. pm_qos will be updated to export statistics initially closely >>> > matching what suspend blockers provides (simple update of the >rw >>> > interface?) > >4. It would be useful to change pm_qos_add_request to not allocate >anything so can add constraints from init functions that currently >cannot fail. [mtg: ] I'm not sure how to do this but I agree it would be good. I guess we could have a block of pm_qos requests pre-allocated statically and re-use them. In practice there will not be more than a handful of requests ever. Dynamic allocation does seem like a bit of a waste. > >>> > >>> > After this is done, the current android suspend block patch becomes a >>> > re-expression in kernel space in terms of pm_qos, with the current >>> > userspace wakelocks being adapted by the android framework into pm_qos >>> > requirements expressed to /dev/cpu_interactivity (or whatever name is >>> > chosen). Then opportunistic suspend is either a small add-on kernel >>> > patch they have in their tree to suspend when the interactivity >>> > constraint goes to NONE, or it could be done entirely by a userspace >>> > process. Long term this could migrate to the freezer and suspend from >>> > idle approach as the various problem timers get fixed. >>> > >>> > I think the big unresolved issue is the stats extension. For android, >>> > we need just a name written along with the value, so we have something >>> > to hang the stats off ... current pm_qos userspace users just write a >>> > value, so the name would be optional. From the kernel, we probably >just >>> > need an additional API that takes a stats name or NULL if none >>> > (pm_qos_add_request_named()?). Then reading the stats could be done >by >>> > implementing a fops read routine on the misc device. >>> >>> Is the original idea of having that information in debugfs >objectionable? >> >> Well ... debugfs is usually used to get around the sysfs rules. In this >> case, pm_qos has a dev interface ... I don't specifically object to >> using debugfs, but I don't see any reason to forbid it from being a >> simple dev read interface either. >> > >We don't currently have a dev interface for stats so this is not an >immediate requirement. The suspend blocker debugfs interface is just >as good as the proc interface we have for wakelocks. > >-- >Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
