From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753726Ab2D0VR2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:17:28 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([193.178.161.156]:42123 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753156Ab2D0VR0 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:17:26 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: NeilBrown Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] PM / Sleep: Implement opportunistic sleep Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:22:05 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.4.0-rc4+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Linux PM list , LKML , Magnus Damm , markgross@thegnar.org, Matthew Garrett , Greg KH , Arve =?utf-8?q?Hj=C3=B8nnev=C3=A5g?= , John Stultz , Brian Swetland , Alan Stern , Dmitry Torokhov , "Srivatsa S. Bhat" References: <201202070200.55505.rjw@sisk.pl> <201204262352.43254.rjw@sisk.pl> <20120427103959.233cf065@notabene.brown> In-Reply-To: <20120427103959.233cf065@notabene.brown> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <201204272322.05749.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, April 27, 2012, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:52:42 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 26, 2012, NeilBrown wrote: > > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:23:23 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > > > > > From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" > > > > To: Linux PM list > > > > Cc: LKML , Magnus Damm , markgross@thegnar.org, Matthew Garrett , Greg KH , Arve Hjønnevåg , John Stultz , Brian Swetland , Neil Brown , Alan Stern , Dmitry Torokhov , "Srivatsa S. Bhat" > > > > Subject: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] PM / Sleep: Implement opportunistic sleep > > > > Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:23:23 +0200 > > > > Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org > > > > User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.4.0-rc3+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) > > > > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > > > Introduce a mechanism by which the kernel can trigger global > > > > transitions to a sleep state chosen by user space if there are no > > > > active wakeup sources. > > > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > Hi, > > > > > just a few little issues below. Over all I think that if we have to have > > > auto-sleep in the kernel, then this is a good way to do it. > > > > Good, we seem to agree in principle, then. :-) > > > > > > +static void try_to_suspend(struct work_struct *work) > > > > +{ > > > > + unsigned int initial_count, final_count; > > > > + > > > > + if (!pm_get_wakeup_count(&initial_count, true)) > > > > + goto out; > > > > + > > > > + mutex_lock(&autosleep_lock); > > > > + > > > > + if (!pm_save_wakeup_count(initial_count)) { > > > > + mutex_unlock(&autosleep_lock); > > > > + goto out; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + if (autosleep_state == PM_SUSPEND_ON) { > > > > + mutex_unlock(&autosleep_lock); > > > > + return; > > > > + } > > > > + if (autosleep_state >= PM_SUSPEND_MAX) > > > > + hibernate(); > > > > + else > > > > + pm_suspend(autosleep_state); > > > > + > > > > + mutex_unlock(&autosleep_lock); > > > > + > > > > + if (!pm_get_wakeup_count(&final_count, false)) > > > > + goto out; > > > > + > > > > + if (final_count == initial_count) > > > > + schedule_timeout(HZ / 2); > > > > > > This doesn't do what you seem to expect it to do. > > > You need to set current->state to something like TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE > > > before calling schedule_timeout, otherwise it is effectily a no-op. > > > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(), for example, will do this for you. > > > > Right. I obviously overlooked the missing state change. > > > > > However the value of this isn't clear to me, so a comment would probably be a > > > good thing. > > > This continue presumably fires if we wake up without any wakeup sources > > > being activated. In that case you want to delay for 500ms - presumably to > > > avoid a tight suspend/resume loop if something goes wrong? > > > > Yes. > > > > > I have occasionally seen a stray/uninteresting interrupt wake from suspend > > > immediately after entering suspend and the next attempt succeeds. Maybe this > > > is a bug in some driver somewhere, but not a big one. I think I would rather > > > in that case that we attempt to re-enter suspend immediately. Maybe after a > > > few failed attempts it makes sense to back off. > > > > Perhaps. We can adjust this particular thing later, I think. > > > > > The other question is: if we want to back-off, is 500ms really enough? What > > > will be gained by, or could be achieved in, that time? An exponential > > > back-off might be defensible, but I can't see the value of a 500ms fixed > > > back-off. > > > However if you can, I'd love to see a comment in there explaining it. > > > > Sure. > > > > > > + > > > > + out: > > > > + queue_up_suspend_work(); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > +int pm_autosleep_set_state(suspend_state_t state) > > > > +{ > > > > + > > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_HIBERNATION > > > > + if (state >= PM_SUSPEND_MAX) > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > +#endif > > > > + > > > > + __pm_stay_awake(autosleep_ws); > > > > + > > > > + mutex_lock(&autosleep_lock); > > > > + > > > > + autosleep_state = state; > > > > + > > > > + __pm_relax(autosleep_ws); > > > > > > I'm struggling to see the point of the autosleep_ws. > > > > > > A suspend cannot actually happen while this code is running (can it?) because > > > it will wait for the process to enter the freezer. > > > So the only effect of this is: > > > 1/ cause the current auto-sleep cycle to abort and > > > 2/ maybe add some accounting number is the autosleep_ws. > > > Is that right? > > > Which of these is needed? > > > > This is to solve a problem when user space attempts to echo "off" to > > /sys/power/autosleep exactly when pm_suspend() is initiated as a part > > of autosleep under the autosleep lock. In that case, if autosleep_ws is not > > there, the process wanting to disable autosleep will have to wait for the > > pm_suspend() to complete (unless it holds a wakelock), which is suboptimal. > > > > > I would imagine that any process writing to /sys/power/autosleep would be > > > holding a wakelock, and if it didn't it should expect things to be racy... > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > The assumption above is kind of optimistic in my opinion. That process > > very well may be a system administrator's bash, for example. :-) > > If it is, then presumably the auto-sleep could kick in between any pair of > keystrokes that the sysadmin types. Or between the final 'enter' and when the > write() system call begins. All that autosleep_ws seems to provide is > certainty that when the write() system call completes, autosleep will be > fully disabled. > I don't think that is really worth anything. > > However, something did occur to me that I would like clarified. > What happens if try_to_suspend() gets the autosleep_lock just before > wakeup_count_store(), state_store() or pm_autosleep_set_state() > try to get it? > For pm_autosleep_set_state() the try_to_suspend() attempt will abort because > it is holding autosleep_ws, so it will drop the lock and > pm_autosleep_set_state() will continue happily. > For the other two, what will happen (if there are no active wakesources and > autosleep is enabled). > I'm guessing that try_to_suspend will try to freeze all the process, which > sends a pseudo signal to all processes, so the mutex_lock_interruptible will > fail and the suspend will complete. > Then will the aborted write() system call be re-attempted? > > If that is right, then here is a very clear need to autosleep_ws: it prevents > a deadlock. Yes, I think that this is the case. > So it appears there is a very real need for autosleep_ws that even I can > agree with. It seems subtle though and could usefully be documented: > > /* Note: it is only safe to mutex_lock(&autosleep_lock) if a wakeup_source > * is active, otherwise a deadlock with try_to_suspend() is possible. > * Alternatively mutex_lock_interruptible() can be used. This will then fail > * if an auto_sleep cycle tries to freeze processes. > */ I'll add the comment above if you don't mind. :-) > static DEFINE_MUTEX(autosleep_lock); > > So: > Reviewed-by: NeilBrown Thanks! Rafael