From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> To: Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@linaro.org> Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>, Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>, Jonathan Austin <Jonathan.Austin@arm.com>, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>, Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@ti.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Cyril Chemparathy <cyril@ti.com>, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 3/3] ARM hibernation / suspend-to-disk Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:32:51 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20140225113251.GB6855@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20140223200208.12998.47604@capellas-linux> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 08:02:08PM +0000, Sebastian Capella wrote: > Quoting Lorenzo Pieralisi (2014-02-22 04:09:10) > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 10:38:40AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:12:54PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:52:09AM +0000, Sebastian Capella wrote: > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * Snapshot kernel memory and reset the system. > > > > > + * After resume, the hibernation snapshot is written out. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +static int notrace __swsusp_arch_save_image(unsigned long unused) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + int ret; > > > > > + > > > > > + ret = swsusp_save(); > > > > > + if (ret == 0) > > > > > + soft_restart(virt_to_phys(cpu_resume)); > > > > > > > > By the time the suspend finisher (ie this function) is run, the > > > > processor state has been saved and I think that's all you have to do, > > > > function can just return after calling swsusp_save(), unless I am missing > > > > something. > > > > > > > > I do not understand why a soft_restart is required here. On a side note, > > > > finisher is called with irqs disabled so, since you added a function for > > > > soft restart noirq, it should be used, if needed, but I have to understand > > > > why in the first place. > > > > > > It's required because you can't just return from the finisher. A normal > > > return from the finisher will always be interpreted as an abort rather > > > than success (because the state has to be unwound.) > > > > > > This is the only way to get a zero return from cpu_suspend(). > > > > Yes, that's the only reason why this code is jumping to cpu_resume, since > > all it is needed is to snapshot the CPU context and by the time the > > finisher is called that's done. Wanted to say that soft reboot is not > > useful (cache flushing and resume with MMU off), but what you are saying > > is correct. We might be saving swsusp_save return value in a global > > variable and just return from the finisher, but that's horrible and > > given the amount of time it takes to snapshot the image to disk the > > cost of this soft reboot will be dwarfed by that. > > > > I wanted to ask and clarify why the code was written like this though, given > > its complexity. > > We could also return a constant > 1. __cpu_suspend code will replace > a 0 return with 1 for paths exiting suspend, but will not change return > values != 0. Yes, we could but that's an API abuse and as I mentioned that soft_reboot is not a massive deal, should not block your series. It is certainly something to be benchmarked though since wiping the entire cache hierarchy for nothing is not nifty. > cpu_suspend_abort: > ldmia sp!, {r1 - r3} @ pop phys pgd, virt SP, phys > resume fn > teq r0, #0 > moveq r0, #1 @ force non-zero value > mov sp, r2 > ldmfd sp!, {r4 - r11, pc} > > We could take advantage of that if we wanted, but Lorenzo pointed out > also that the relative benefit is very low since the cost of > resuming is >> soft_restart. The cost of writing to disk, to be precise. Again, this should be benchmarked. > I'll go with leaving the soft_restart as is unless someone feels > strongly against. Leaving it as it is is fine for now, but should be commented, because that's not clear why it is needed by just reading the code. Thanks, Lorenzo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH RFC v1 3/3] ARM hibernation / suspend-to-disk Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:32:51 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20140225113251.GB6855@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20140223200208.12998.47604@capellas-linux> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 08:02:08PM +0000, Sebastian Capella wrote: > Quoting Lorenzo Pieralisi (2014-02-22 04:09:10) > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 10:38:40AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:12:54PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:52:09AM +0000, Sebastian Capella wrote: > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * Snapshot kernel memory and reset the system. > > > > > + * After resume, the hibernation snapshot is written out. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +static int notrace __swsusp_arch_save_image(unsigned long unused) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + int ret; > > > > > + > > > > > + ret = swsusp_save(); > > > > > + if (ret == 0) > > > > > + soft_restart(virt_to_phys(cpu_resume)); > > > > > > > > By the time the suspend finisher (ie this function) is run, the > > > > processor state has been saved and I think that's all you have to do, > > > > function can just return after calling swsusp_save(), unless I am missing > > > > something. > > > > > > > > I do not understand why a soft_restart is required here. On a side note, > > > > finisher is called with irqs disabled so, since you added a function for > > > > soft restart noirq, it should be used, if needed, but I have to understand > > > > why in the first place. > > > > > > It's required because you can't just return from the finisher. A normal > > > return from the finisher will always be interpreted as an abort rather > > > than success (because the state has to be unwound.) > > > > > > This is the only way to get a zero return from cpu_suspend(). > > > > Yes, that's the only reason why this code is jumping to cpu_resume, since > > all it is needed is to snapshot the CPU context and by the time the > > finisher is called that's done. Wanted to say that soft reboot is not > > useful (cache flushing and resume with MMU off), but what you are saying > > is correct. We might be saving swsusp_save return value in a global > > variable and just return from the finisher, but that's horrible and > > given the amount of time it takes to snapshot the image to disk the > > cost of this soft reboot will be dwarfed by that. > > > > I wanted to ask and clarify why the code was written like this though, given > > its complexity. > > We could also return a constant > 1. __cpu_suspend code will replace > a 0 return with 1 for paths exiting suspend, but will not change return > values != 0. Yes, we could but that's an API abuse and as I mentioned that soft_reboot is not a massive deal, should not block your series. It is certainly something to be benchmarked though since wiping the entire cache hierarchy for nothing is not nifty. > cpu_suspend_abort: > ldmia sp!, {r1 - r3} @ pop phys pgd, virt SP, phys > resume fn > teq r0, #0 > moveq r0, #1 @ force non-zero value > mov sp, r2 > ldmfd sp!, {r4 - r11, pc} > > We could take advantage of that if we wanted, but Lorenzo pointed out > also that the relative benefit is very low since the cost of > resuming is >> soft_restart. The cost of writing to disk, to be precise. Again, this should be benchmarked. > I'll go with leaving the soft_restart as is unless someone feels > strongly against. Leaving it as it is is fine for now, but should be commented, because that's not clear why it is needed by just reading the code. Thanks, Lorenzo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-25 11:32 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 91+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-02-19 1:52 [PATCH RFC v1 0/3] hibernation support on ARM Sebastian Capella 2014-02-19 1:52 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-19 1:52 ` [PATCH RFC v1 1/3] ARM: Add irq disabled version of soft_restart Sebastian Capella 2014-02-19 1:52 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-22 10:26 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2014-02-22 10:26 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2014-02-24 23:13 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-24 23:13 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-25 0:22 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-25 0:22 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-25 7:56 ` Russ Dill 2014-02-25 7:56 ` Russ Dill 2014-02-25 7:56 ` Russ Dill 2014-02-25 10:27 ` Thomas Gleixner 2014-02-25 10:27 ` Thomas Gleixner 2014-02-25 17:15 ` Russ Dill 2014-02-25 17:15 ` Russ Dill 2014-02-25 17:15 ` Russ Dill 2014-02-25 23:24 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-25 23:24 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-19 1:52 ` [PATCH RFC v1 2/3] Fix hibernation restore hang in freeze_processes Sebastian Capella 2014-02-19 1:52 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-24 7:09 ` Ming Lei 2014-02-24 7:09 ` Ming Lei 2014-02-19 1:52 ` [PATCH RFC v1 3/3] ARM hibernation / suspend-to-disk Sebastian Capella 2014-02-19 1:52 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-19 16:12 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-19 16:12 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-19 16:12 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-19 19:10 ` Russ Dill 2014-02-19 19:10 ` Russ Dill 2014-02-19 19:10 ` Russ Dill 2014-02-20 10:37 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-20 10:37 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-20 10:37 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-19 19:33 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-19 19:33 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-20 16:27 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-20 16:27 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-20 16:27 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-21 18:39 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-21 18:39 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-21 23:59 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-21 23:59 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-22 4:37 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-22 4:37 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-22 6:46 ` Russ Dill 2014-02-22 6:46 ` Russ Dill 2014-02-22 6:46 ` Russ Dill 2014-02-22 10:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2014-02-22 10:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2014-02-22 10:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2014-02-22 10:16 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2014-02-22 10:16 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2014-02-22 10:16 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2014-02-22 12:13 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-22 12:13 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-22 12:13 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-22 22:30 ` Pavel Machek 2014-02-22 22:30 ` Pavel Machek 2014-02-22 22:30 ` Pavel Machek 2014-02-21 1:01 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-21 1:01 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-22 10:38 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2014-02-22 10:38 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2014-02-22 10:38 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2014-02-22 12:09 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-22 12:09 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-22 12:09 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-22 22:28 ` Pavel Machek 2014-02-22 22:28 ` Pavel Machek 2014-02-22 22:28 ` Pavel Machek 2014-02-23 19:52 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-23 19:52 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-23 19:52 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-23 20:02 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-23 20:02 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-23 20:02 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-25 11:32 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message] 2014-02-25 11:32 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-25 11:32 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-25 17:55 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-25 17:55 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-26 10:24 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-26 10:24 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-26 10:24 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-26 17:50 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-26 17:50 ` Sebastian Capella 2014-02-26 19:03 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-26 19:03 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2014-02-26 19:03 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20140225113251.GB6855@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com \ --to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \ --cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \ --cc=Jonathan.Austin@arm.com \ --cc=Russ.Dill@ti.com \ --cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \ --cc=cyril@ti.com \ --cc=len.brown@intel.com \ --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \ --cc=nico@linaro.org \ --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \ --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \ --cc=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \ --cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \ --cc=sebastian.capella@linaro.org \ --cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.