From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / suspend: Count suspend-to-idle loop as sleep time
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 09:47:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hnchptNz8sHxtuTDbE-f3axgfMgKMgRiasoUv2G7Z0+Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180914074052.GF24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 08:59:03AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >
> > There is a difference in behavior between suspend-to-idle and
> > suspend-to-RAM in the timekeeping handling that leads to functional
> > issues. Namely, every iteration of the loop in s2idle_loop()
> > increases the monotinic clock somewhat, even if timekeeping_suspend()
> > and timekeeping_resume() are invoked from s2idle_enter(), and if
> > many of them are carried out in a row, the monotonic clock can grow
> > significantly while the system is regarded as suspended, which
> > doesn't happen during suspend-to-RAM and so it is unexpected and
> > leads to confusion and misbehavior in user space (similar to what
> > ensued when we tried to combine the boottime and monotonic clocks).
> >
> > To avoid that, count all iterations of the loop in s2idle_loop()
> > as "sleep time" and adjust the clock for that on exit from
> > suspend-to-idle.
> >
> > [That also covers systems on which timekeeping is not suspended
> > by by s2idle_enter().]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Do we want a 'warning' of sorts when the delta becomes significant (for
> whatever that is) ? That might be an indication that there are frequent
> wakeups which we might not be expecting. Of keep the number of spurious
> wakeups in a stat counter somewhere -- something to look at if the
> battery drains faster than expected.
If you echo 1 to /sys/power/pm_debug_messages, dmesg will tell you
that (with gory details). :-)
> Otherwise:
>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
>
> One minor nit below:
>
> > ---
> > kernel/power/suspend.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > +++ linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > @@ -109,8 +109,12 @@ static void s2idle_enter(void)
> >
> > static void s2idle_loop(void)
> > {
> > + ktime_t start, delta;
> > +
> > pm_pr_dbg("suspend-to-idle\n");
> >
> > + start = ktime_get();
> > +
> > for (;;) {
> > int error;
> >
> > @@ -150,6 +154,20 @@ static void s2idle_loop(void)
> > pm_wakeup_clear(false);
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > + * If the monotonic clock difference between the start of the loop and
> > + * this point is too large, user space may get confused about whether or
> > + * not the system has been suspended and tasks may get killed by
> > + * watchdogs etc., so count the loop as "sleep time" to compensate for
> > + * that.
> > + */
> > + delta = ktime_sub(ktime_get(), start);
> > + if (ktime_to_ns(delta) > 0) {
> > + struct timespec64 timespec64_delta = ktime_to_timespec64(delta);
> > +
> > + timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64(×pec64_delta);
> > + }
> > +
> > pm_pr_dbg("resume from suspend-to-idle\n");
> > }
>
> Like I mentioned yesterday; I myself prefer the form:
>
>
> u64 stamp = ktimer_get_ns();
>
> for (;;) {
> /* ... */
> }
>
> stamp = ktime_get_ns() - stamp;
> if (stamp)
> timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64(ns_to_timespec64(ns));
>
>
> Esp. since ktime_t _is_ s64 these days, there is no point in keep using
> all the weird ktime helpers that make the code harder to read.
Looks like a good idea, let me try that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-14 7:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-14 6:59 [PATCH] PM / suspend: Count suspend-to-idle loop as sleep time Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-09-14 7:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-14 7:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2018-09-14 8:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-14 8:13 ` [PATCH v2] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-09-14 8:28 ` [PATCH] " Mika Penttilä
2018-09-14 8:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-09-14 9:53 ` Mika Penttilä
2018-09-14 10:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-09-14 12:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-17 8:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-09-22 15:50 ` kbuild test robot
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=CAJZ5v0hnchptNz8sHxtuTDbE-f3axgfMgKMgRiasoUv2G7Z0+Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=rafael@kernel.org \
--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=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
/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).