From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
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: Thu, 8 May 2014 14:25:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqS1Brnb2GezX8-=+WkQmXei-6UrrAuYhU6td6O-uxMPw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2321901.5eTtTCbUUZ@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 8 May 2014 13:44, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 08, 2014 12:59:20 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 8 May 2014 12:53, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, May 08, 2014 09:49:36 AM Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> >> On 8 May 2014 01:29, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>> >> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> >> >
>> >> > Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have to
>> >> > resume all runtime-suspended devices during system suspend, mostly
>> >> > because those devices may need to be reprogrammed due to different
>> >> > wakeup settings for system sleep and for runtime PM.
>> >> >
>> >> > For some devices, though, it's OK to remain in runtime suspend
>> >> > throughout a complete system suspend/resume cycle (if the device was in
>> >> > runtime suspend at the start of the cycle). We would like to do this
>> >> > whenever possible, to avoid the overhead of extra power-up and power-down
>> >> > events.
>> >> >
>> >> > However, problems may arise because the device's descendants may require
>> >> > it to be at full power at various points during the cycle. Therefore the
>> >> > most straightforward way to do this safely is if the device and all its
>> >> > descendants can remain runtime suspended until the resume stage of system
>> >> > resume.
>> >> >
>> >> > To this end, introduce dev->power.leave_runtime_suspended.
>> >> > If a subsystem or driver sets this flag during the ->prepare() callback,
>> >> > and if the flag is set in all of the device's descendants, and if the
>> >> > device is still in runtime suspend at the beginning of the ->suspend()
>> >> > callback, that callback is allowed to return 0 without clearing
>> >> > power.leave_runtime_suspended and without changing the state of the
>> >> > device, unless the current state of the device is not appropriate for
>> >> > the upcoming system sleep state (for example, the device is supposed to
>> >> > wake up the system from that state and its current wakeup settings are
>> >> > not suitable for that). Then, the PM core will not invoke the device's
>> >> > ->suspend_late(), ->suspend_irq(), ->resume_irq(), ->resume_early(), or
>> >> > ->resume() callbacks. Instead, it will invoke ->runtime_resume() during
>> >> > the device resume stage of system resume.
>> >> >
>> >> > By leaving this flag set after ->suspend(), a driver or subsystem tells
>> >> > the PM core that the device is runtime suspended, it is in a suitable
>> >> > state for system suspend (for example, the wakeup setting does not
>> >> > need to be changed), and it does not need to return to full
>> >> > power until the resume stage.
>> >> >
>> >> > Changelog based on an Alan Stern's description of the idea
>> >> > (http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=139940466625569&w=2).
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> > drivers/base/power/main.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> >> > drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 10 ++++++++++
>> >> > include/linux/pm.h | 3 +++
>> >> > include/linux/pm_runtime.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> >> > kernel/power/Kconfig | 4 ++++
>> >> > 5 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Index: linux-pm/kernel/power/Kconfig
>> >> > ===================================================================
>> >> > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/power/Kconfig
>> >> > +++ linux-pm/kernel/power/Kconfig
>> >> > @@ -147,6 +147,10 @@ config PM
>> >> > def_bool y
>> >> > depends on PM_SLEEP || PM_RUNTIME
>> >> >
>> >> > +config PM_BOTH
>> >> > + def_bool y
>> >> > + depends on PM_SLEEP && PM_RUNTIME
>> >> > +
>> >>
>> >> Should we not depend on PM_RUNTIME only? Thus we don't need the new
>> >> Kconfig,
>> >
>> > Well, OK. I guess we can tolerate one useless statement in rpm_resume()
>> > in case CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is unset.
>> >
>> >> and then we could rename the new APIs to pm_runtime_* instead.
>> >
>> > That would just make the name longer - for what value?
>>
>> Only "__set_leave_runtime_suspended" will be a bit longer.
>>
>> The idea I had was to clearly indicate, these functions is a part of
>> PM_RUNTIME API.
>>
>> Compare what you have:
>> __set_leave_runtime_suspended
>> pm_set_leave_runtime_suspended
>> pm_leave_runtime_suspended
>>
>> To what I suggest:
>> __pm_runtime_set_leave_suspended
>> pm_runtime_set_leave_suspended
>> pm_runtime_leave_suspended
>
> And why exactly do you think these are any better?
Because that's how all (almost all) other functions in the runtime PM
API are specified - I believe it makes sense to keep them aligned.
Anyway, if you insist in keeping your functions names, it's not that
of a big deal for me.
Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>
> The flag is not called leave_suspended surely?
To me that doesn't matter, the flag has nothing to do with the
function names in an API.
>
>
> --
> I speak only for myself.
> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-08 12:25 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 [this message]
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
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='CAPDyKFqS1Brnb2GezX8-=+WkQmXei-6UrrAuYhU6td6O-uxMPw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
--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=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--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).