mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
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, 08 May 2014 12:53:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1589827.thSfpq14Si@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFoYsKunfo1Vzp3U-QDZVg97m31taKG3ZuW_86Bt3xWPog@mail.gmail.com>

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?

> >  config PM_DEBUG
> >         bool "Power Management Debug Support"
> >         depends on PM
> > Index: linux-pm/include/linux/pm.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/pm.h
> > +++ linux-pm/include/linux/pm.h
> > @@ -583,6 +583,9 @@ struct dev_pm_info {
> >         unsigned long           suspended_jiffies;
> >         unsigned long           accounting_timestamp;
> >  #endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_BOTH
> > +       bool                    leave_runtime_suspended:1;
> > +#endif
> >         struct pm_subsys_data   *subsys_data;  /* Owned by the subsystem. */
> >         void (*set_latency_tolerance)(struct device *, s32);
> >         struct dev_pm_qos       *qos;
> > Index: linux-pm/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > +++ linux-pm/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > @@ -264,4 +264,20 @@ static inline void pm_runtime_dont_use_a
> >         __pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(dev, false);
> >  }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_BOTH
> > +static inline void __set_leave_runtime_suspended(struct device *dev, bool val)
> > +{
> > +       dev->power.leave_runtime_suspended = val;
> > +}
> > +extern void pm_set_leave_runtime_suspended(struct device *dev, bool val);
> > +static inline bool pm_leave_runtime_suspended(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +       return dev->power.leave_runtime_suspended;
> > +}
> > +#else
> > +static inline void __set_leave_runtime_suspended(struct device *dev, bool val) {}
> > +static inline void pm_set_leave_runtime_suspended(struct device *dev, bool val) {}
> > +static inline bool pm_leave_runtime_suspended(struct device *dev) { return false; }
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  #endif
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > @@ -732,6 +732,7 @@ static int rpm_resume(struct device *dev
> >         }
> >   skip_parent:
> >
> > +       __set_leave_runtime_suspended(dev, false);

(*)

> >         if (dev->power.no_callbacks)
> >                 goto no_callback;       /* Assume success. */
> >
> > @@ -1485,3 +1486,12 @@ out:
> >         return ret;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_runtime_force_resume);
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_BOTH
> > +void pm_set_leave_runtime_suspended(struct device *dev, bool val)
> > +{
> > +       spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> > +       __set_leave_runtime_suspended(dev, val);
> > +       spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > @@ -479,7 +479,7 @@ static int device_resume_noirq(struct de
> >         TRACE_DEVICE(dev);
> >         TRACE_RESUME(0);
> >
> > -       if (dev->power.syscore)
> > +       if (dev->power.syscore || pm_leave_runtime_suspended(dev))
> >                 goto Out;
> >
> >         if (!dev->power.is_noirq_suspended)
> > @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int device_resume_early(struct de
> >         TRACE_DEVICE(dev);
> >         TRACE_RESUME(0);
> >
> > -       if (dev->power.syscore)
> > +       if (dev->power.syscore || pm_leave_runtime_suspended(dev))
> >                 goto Out;
> >
> >         if (!dev->power.is_late_suspended)
> > @@ -735,6 +735,11 @@ static int device_resume(struct device *
> >         if (dev->power.syscore)
> >                 goto Complete;
> >
> > +       if (pm_leave_runtime_suspended(dev)) {
> > +               pm_runtime_resume(dev);
> > +               goto Complete;
> > +       }
> > +
> >         dpm_wait(dev->parent, async);
> >         dpm_watchdog_set(&wd, dev);
> >         device_lock(dev);
> > @@ -1007,7 +1012,7 @@ static int __device_suspend_noirq(struct
> >                 goto Complete;
> >         }
> >
> > -       if (dev->power.syscore)
> > +       if (dev->power.syscore || pm_leave_runtime_suspended(dev))
> >                 goto Complete;
> >
> >         dpm_wait_for_children(dev, async);
> > @@ -1146,7 +1151,7 @@ static int __device_suspend_late(struct
> >                 goto Complete;
> >         }
> >
> > -       if (dev->power.syscore)
> > +       if (dev->power.syscore || pm_leave_runtime_suspended(dev))
> >                 goto Complete;
> >
> >         dpm_wait_for_children(dev, async);
> > @@ -1382,10 +1387,21 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct devic
> >
> >   End:
> >         if (!error) {
> > +               struct device *parent = dev->parent;
> > +
> >                 dev->power.is_suspended = true;
> > -               if (dev->power.wakeup_path
> > -                   && dev->parent && !dev->parent->power.ignore_children)
> > -                       dev->parent->power.wakeup_path = true;
> > +               if (parent) {
> > +                       spin_lock_irq(&parent->power.lock);
> > +
> > +                       if (dev->power.wakeup_path
> > +                           && !parent->power.ignore_children)
> > +                               parent->power.wakeup_path = true;
> > +
> > +                       if (!pm_leave_runtime_suspended(dev))
> 
> I suppose this is the reason to why you think you need CONFIG_PM_BOTH?

Actually, no.  The reason is the (*) change in rpm_resume().

> But won't this would work nicely even if we just had CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME?

Yes, it will.

> > +                               __set_leave_runtime_suspended(parent, false);
> > +
> > +                       spin_unlock_irq(&parent->power.lock);
> > +               }
> >         }
> >
> >         device_unlock(dev);
> > @@ -1553,6 +1569,7 @@ int dpm_prepare(pm_message_t state)
> >                 struct device *dev = to_device(dpm_list.next);
> >
> >                 get_device(dev);
> > +               pm_set_leave_runtime_suspended(dev, false);
> 
> Is this needed?

Yes, it is.  We don't want any leftovers after this point.

> >                 mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> >
> >                 error = device_prepare(dev, state);
> >
> > --

Thanks!


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

  reply	other threads:[~2014-05-08 10:37 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 [this message]
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
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=1589827.thSfpq14Si@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 \
    --cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®