Date:	Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:19:50 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	david@...g.hm
cc:	Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>,
	Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 david@...g.hm wrote:

> > You are confusing "userspace" with "user tasks".  And not only that,
> > you often use the term "userspace" when you should say "user mode".
> >
> > If you want I can explain the differences.
> 
> please do, I have been treating all three as the same catagory.

Very briefly then: "User mode" and "kernel mode" refer to the CPU's
hardware privilege level.  A process makes the transition from user
mode to kernel mode by executing a system call.  Interrupt and
exception handlers also run in kernel mode, but they generally are not
considered to be part of any process.  The reverse transition occurs
when a process returns from a system call, or when an interrupt which
occurred while the CPU was in user mode completes.  (It's interesting
to note that system calls are somewhat similar to interrupts; in fact
sometimes they are implemented by a "software interrupt".)

"Kernel threads" are processes that run entirely in kernel mode.  They
usually don't have a memory mapping for any user-owned memory and they
never go into user mode.  All other processes are "user threads".

"Userspace" is a rather general term referring to things not in the
kernel.  It comprises both user tasks (while running in user mode) and
user memory.

> Ok, I did misunderstand you. it sound slike all you need to do to make 
> sure that locks are not held is to allow system calls to return before 
> trying to do the suspend/kexec/etc. that sounds like not only a trivial 
> thing to do, but something that would probably be done anyway.

If you could actually do it, it would work.  But you can't do it.  If 
it were feasible, the freezer would have used that approach in the 
first place.

For one thing, checking for a suspend-in-progress at the beginning of
each and every system call would add overhead to a hot path in the
kernel, one which is already very heavily optimized.  People wouldn't
stand for it.

> although syscalls that then call out to userspace tasks before they can 
> complete cause potential deadlocks (without that issue you can just wait 
> until all syscalls have returned, and not allow anything to issue new 
> syscalls) is this the issue that's killing FUSE+suspend?

You get similar problems from system calls that wait in kernel mode 
until something has happened.  For example, a read() call for the 
console device will wait until somebody types on the keyboard.  At any 
point in time, many (or even most) user threads are blocked in a system 
call.

> > Here's what you are missing:
> >
> > The new kexec approach eliminates the freezer and relies instead on the
> > fact that none of the tasks in the original kernel can execute while
> > the new kexec'd kernel is running.  This means the new kernel can write
> > out a memory image with no fear of interference or corruption.
> 
> correct
> 
> > But it also means that tasks which otherwise would have been frozen are
> > actually free to run before the kexec call is made (and after the call
> > returns, if the kexec'd kernel returns back to the original kernel).
> > Any driver which was written with the assumption that tasks would be
> > frozen at those times will need to be changed.
> 
> here is where you loose me.
> 
> why should jumping back to the original kernel immedialty start running 
> these processes?

Let's let kernel K1 be the original kernel, the one which is going into
hibernation.  Kernel K2 is the one started by kexec to write out the
memory image.

Your question becomes: Why should K2 jumping back to K1 cause K1
immediately to start running user tasks?  Answer: Because K1 has been
running user tasks all along (except while K2 was active) and nothing
has told it to stop.  In fact, about the only things which _can_ cause
K1 to stop running user threads are the freezer (which you want to
eliminate) and disabling interrupts (not possible since some drivers
require interrupts to be enabled when putting devices in low-power 
mode).

>  the process of doing a kexec requires things to happen in 
> the drivers before normal activity can happen, so there is a phase in 
> there where the kernel being jumped to has drivers initializing, but still 
> does not allow anything else to run.

So when K2 starts up, it will have a phase in which user threads don't 
run.  That doesn't affect K1.  When K2 returns to K1, K1 does not go 
through this sort of phase.  It simply picks up from where it left off.

> why can't this phase be extended to 
> allow for the possibility of transitioning these drivers to a sleep mode 
> instead of to full operation?

Indeed, Rafael has suggested that K2 be responsible for putting devices
in low-power mode.  This has the disadvantage of requiring K2 to 
include drivers for every device used by K1, but otherwise it would 
work.

However there still remains the problem of user tasks running after 
devices are supposed to be quiescent and before K1 starts.  There's 
currently nothing to stop such tasks from making I/O requests and 
thereby causing a quiescent device to become active again.

> > The situation as regards locking is harder to discuss since I don't
> > know of any code examples to use as a guide.  The fact remains that if
> > user tasks aren't frozen then they can make system calls, and while
> > running in kernel mode they can acquire locks, which might cause
> > problems -- even though I can't identify any definite examples.
> 
> yes, if userspace is running jobs and submitting I/O and system calls 
> while drivers are trying to initalize there is a big problem, but I am 
> missing the reason this must be the case.

We aren't talking about drivers initializing devices.  We are talking
about what happens during the time when drivers are trying to quiesce
devices (i.e., before K1 has started up K2) or power them down (after
K2 has returned to K1).

> the part of the freezer that everyone is trying to eliminate is the 
> exceptions (freeze everything except X,Y,Z becouse we will need to use 
> those later for A)

Wrong.  People are trying to eliminate the freezer entirely.  Go back 
and reread some of the postings at the beginning of this long thread, 
especially those from Paul Mackerras and Ben Herrenschmidt.

Alan Stern

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists