From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM / sleep: Flag to speed up suspend-resume of runtime-suspended devices
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 02:51:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3346144.Mm0AMl2dIl@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1405111213240.22680-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
On Sunday, May 11, 2014 12:46:10 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 08, 2014 09:52:18 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 May 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, no.
> > > >
> > > > The reason why that doesn't work is because ->prepare() callbacks are
> > > > executed in the reverse order, so the perent's ones will be run before
> > > > the ->prepare() of the children. Thus if ->prepare() sets the flag
> > > > with the expectation that ->suspend() (and the subsequent callbacks)
> > > > won't be executed, that expectation may not be met actually.
> > >
> > > That's true also if the flag gets set in ->suspend(), isn't it? A
> > > driver may set direct_resume in its ->suspend() callback, expecting
> > > that the subsequent callbacks won't be executed. But if a descendant
> > > hasn't also set its flag then the callbacks _will_ be executed.
> >
> > No, that's not possible with the current patch, because __device_suspend() is
> > executed for descendants first and then for ancestors and it clears
> > direct_suspend for the parents of devices that don't have it set. This means
> > that the ancestor's ->suspend() will see the flag clear if it is unset for
> > any of its descendants.
> >
> > IOW, the only case in which the ancestor's ->suspend() sees the flag set is
> > when it has been set for all of its descendants. Thus, if it leaves the
> > flag set, the late/early and noirq callbacks won't be executed for it.
> >
> > Now, there is a reason for concern in that, because ->suspend() may set the
> > flag as a result of an error and that may lead to unexpected consequences.
>
> Ah, my mistake; I should have read the patch more carefully. I didn't
> realize that your plan was for subsystems/drivers to set the flag
> during ->prepare() and then clear it (or leave it set) during
> ->suspend().
>
> > Then the parent will have direct_resume unset. That is not a concern.
> > The only concern to me is possible errors in ->suspend() setting the
> > flag when it shouldn't.
>
> So now one question is: Why would a subsystem or driver want to clear a
> flag that it had set earlier? I can't think of any good reasons. The
> only obvious possibility would be if the wakeup requirements got
> changed between ->prepare() and ->suspend(), but that should never
> happen because wakeup settings are changed by userspace and userspace
> will be frozen.
>
> Another question is: Does a subsystem or driver need to know if the
> original flag setting couldn't be honored? Again, I don't think it is
> necessary to call ->suspend() just for this reason. More precisely, I
> think it will be good enough to call ->suspend() when the flag is clear
> (either because a descendant device didn't set its flag or because the
> device is no longer in runtime suspend); if the flag is set then there
> is no reason to call ->suspend(). The subsystem can assume that
> ->suspend() won't be called; then if it does get called, the subsystem
> will realize something has changed.
>
> Thus, a suitable algorithm now appears to be:
>
> Have subsystems/drivers set the flag during ->prepare(). They
> don't even have to check if the device is runtime-suspended;
> if it isn't then the PM core will turn off the flag later.
>
> In __device_suspend(), before invoking the ->supend() callback,
> check the flag. If it is still set and if the device is
> runtime-suspended (a barrier may be necessary here), skip
> ->suspend() and the following callbacks. Otherwise clear the
> parent's flag and proceed as usual.
>
> > > Several of these questions are a lot easier to answer if the flag gets
> > > set during ->prepare() rather than ->suspend().
I actually decided to go that way with one difference. I think it's better
to make the PM core own the new flag, so that bus types/drivers don't have
to set/clear it, so I got back to my very first idea about possibly returning
positive values from ->prepare().
The idea is this:
- If ->prepare() returns a positive number, that means "this device is
runtime-suspended and you can leave it like that if you do the same
thing for all of its descendants".
- If that happens, the PM core sets the new flag for the device in
question *if* the device is indeed runtime-suspended *and* *if*
the transition is a suspend (and not hibernation, for example).
Otherwise, it clears the flag for the device. All of that happens in
device_prepare().
- In __device_suspend() the PM core clears the flag for the device's
parent if it is clear for the device to ensure that the flag will only
be set for a device if it is also set for all of its descendants.
- PM core skips ->suspend/late/noirq and ->resume/early/noirq for all devices
having the flag set - so the flag can be called "direct_complete" as it
causes the PM core to go directy for the ->complete() callback when set.
- The ->complete() callback has to check direct_complete if ->prepare()
returned a positive number previously and is responsible for further
handling of the device.
> > I agree with that, but I have one concern about this approach. Namely,
> > in that case the PM core has to use pm_runtime_resume() or equivalent to
> > resume devices with the flag set during the device resume stage. Now,
> > in the next step we may want to leave certain devices suspended at that
> > point and the PM core has no way to tell which ones. Also subsystems
> > don't really have a chance to tell it about that (they would need to
> > know in advance during ->prepare(), which is kind of unrealistic, or
> > perhaps it isn't).
> >
> > However, if ->resume() is called for devices with the flag set, like in
> > my most recent patch, the subsystem may decide not to resume the device
> > if it knows enough about it.
> >
> > This pretty much is my only concern here, so I'm open to ideas how to deal
> > with leaving devices suspended (if possible) during the device resume stage. :-)
>
> This is a good question. I'm not sure of the best answer at the
> moment.
>
> > For one, postponing the resume to ->complete() is an option, but it will have
> > to be done with care, because the ->complete() callbacks are executed
> > sequentially, so calling pm_runtime_resume() from there is rather out of the
> > question.
>
> Calling pm_request_resume() would be okay, though.
>
> There's another aspect to this we need to consider: hibernation. I'm
> quite sure we don't want to come out of hibernation thinking that
> devices are still in their runtime-suspended states. Skipping the
> callbacks for freeze and thaw would be all right in principle, and
> maybe even for poweroff, but not for restore. And of course, during
> the restore stages, the last thing subsystems and drivers will remember
> happening is freeze -- which might mean you shouldn't skip the freeze
> callbacks either.
I agree. I think the outline above should address this too.
I'm going to send a new version of the patches implementing the idea above.
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-13 0:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-14 23:12 [RFC][PATCH 0/3] PM: Mechanism to avoid resuming runtime-suspended devices during system suspend Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-01-14 23:13 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM / sleep: Flag to avoid executing suspend callbacks for devices Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-01-14 23:14 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] PM / runtime: Routine for checking device status during system suspend Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-01-16 13:32 ` Mika Westerberg
2014-01-16 16:07 ` [Update][RFC][PATCH " Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-01-14 23:16 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] ACPI / PM: Avoid resuming devices in ACPI PM domain " Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-01-15 13:57 ` [Update][RFC][PATCH " Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-16 23:49 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] PM: Mechanism to avoid resuming runtime-suspended devices " Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-16 23:50 ` [PATCH 1/3] PM / sleep: New flag to speed up suspend-resume of suspended devices Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-18 12:59 ` Ulf Hansson
2014-02-18 13:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-19 17:01 ` Alan Stern
2014-02-20 1:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-20 1:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-20 17:03 ` Alan Stern
2014-02-24 0:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-24 19:36 ` Alan Stern
2014-02-25 0:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-25 17:08 ` Alan Stern
2014-02-25 23:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-26 16:49 ` Alan Stern
2014-02-26 21:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-26 22:17 ` Alan Stern
2014-02-26 23:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-27 15:02 ` Alan Stern
2014-04-24 22:36 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] PM: Mechanism to avoid resuming runtime-suspended devices during system suspend, v2 Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-24 22:37 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM / sleep: Flags to speed up suspend-resume of runtime-suspended devices Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-01 21:39 ` Alan Stern
2014-05-01 23:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-01 23:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-02 0:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-02 15:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-02 18:44 ` Alan Stern
2014-05-05 0:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-05 15:46 ` Alan Stern
2014-05-06 1:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-06 19:31 ` Alan Stern
2014-05-07 0:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-07 15:43 ` Alan Stern
2014-05-07 23:27 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM / sleep: Flags to speed up suspend-resume of runtime-suspended devices) Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-07 23:29 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM / sleep: Flag to speed up suspend-resume of runtime-suspended devices Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-08 7:49 ` Ulf Hansson
2014-05-08 10:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-08 10:59 ` Ulf Hansson
2014-05-08 11:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-08 12:25 ` Ulf Hansson
2014-05-08 20:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-08 14:36 ` Alan Stern
2014-05-08 14:57 ` Alan Stern
2014-05-08 20:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-08 21:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-08 21:20 ` Alan Stern
2014-05-08 21:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-08 21:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-08 22:28 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] (was: Re: PM / sleep: Flag to speed up suspend-resume of runtime-suspended devices) Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-08 22:41 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM / sleep: Flag to speed up suspend-resume of runtime-suspended devices Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-09 7:23 ` Ulf Hansson
2014-05-09 11:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-08 22:41 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] PM / runtime: Routine for checking device status during system suspend Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-08 22:42 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] ACPI / PM: Avoid resuming devices in ACPI PM domain " Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-09 1:52 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM / sleep: Flag to speed up suspend-resume of runtime-suspended devices Alan Stern
2014-05-09 22:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-11 16:46 ` Alan Stern
2014-05-13 0:51 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2014-05-08 21:08 ` Alan Stern
2014-05-09 22:48 ` Kevin Hilman
2014-05-10 1:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-12 16:33 ` Kevin Hilman
2014-05-07 23:31 ` [Resend][PATCH 2/3] PM / runtime: Routine for checking device status during system suspend Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-07 23:33 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] ACPI / PM: Avoid resuming devices in ACPI PM domain " Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-08 14:59 ` Alan Stern
2014-05-08 19:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-02 16:12 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM / sleep: Flags to speed up suspend-resume of runtime-suspended devices Alan Stern
2014-04-24 22:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3][Resend] PM / runtime: Routine for checking device status during system suspend Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-25 11:28 ` Ulf Hansson
2014-04-24 22:40 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] ACPI / PM: Avoid resuming devices in ACPI PM domain " Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-16 23:51 ` [PATCH 2/3][Resend] PM / runtime: Routine for checking device status " Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-16 23:52 ` [PATCH 3/3] ACPI / PM: Avoid resuming devices in ACPI PM domain " Rafael J. Wysocki
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=3346144.Mm0AMl2dIl@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).