Message-ID: <20100525204405.GE4455@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date:	Tue, 25 May 2010 13:44:05 -0700
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...onice.net>,
	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:21:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 May 2010, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:47:22PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 25 May 2010, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 25 May 2010 11:08:03 am Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 25 May 2010, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > > > > I don't see a big difference between 2 and 3. You can use suspend
> > > > > > > > blockers to handle either.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You can, but they aren't necessary.  If 2 were the only reason for
> > > > > > > suspend blockers, I would say they shouldn't be merged.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Whereas 3, on the other hand, can _not_ be handled by any existing
> > > > > > > mechanism.  3 is perhaps the most important reason for using suspend
> > > > > > > blockers.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I do not see why 3 has to be implemented using suspend blockers either.
> > > > > > If you are concerned that event gets stuck somewhere in the stack make
> > > > > > sure that devices in the stack do not suspend while their queue is not
> > > > > > empty. This way if you try opportunistic suspend it will keep failing
> > > > > > until you drained all important queues.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here's the scenario:
> > > > > 
> > > > > The system is awake, and the user presses a key. The keyboard driver
> > > > > processes the keystroke and puts it in an input queue.  A user process
> > > > > reads it from the event queue, thereby emptying the queue.
> > > > > 
> > > > > At that moment, the system decides to go into opportunistic suspend.
> > > > > Since the input queue is empty, there's nothing to stop it.  As the
> > > > > first step, userspace is frozen -- before the process has a chance to
> > > > > do anything with the keystroke it just read.  As a result, the system
> > > > > stays asleep until something else wakes it up, even though the
> > > > > keystroke was important and should have prevented it from sleeping.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Suspend blockers protect against this scenario.  Here's how:
> > > > > 
> > > > > The user process doesn't read the input queue directly; instead it
> > > > > does a select or poll.  When it sees there is data in the queue, it
> > > > > first acquires a suspend blocker and then reads the data.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Now the system _can't_ go into opportunistic suspend, because a suspend
> > > > > blocker is active.  The user process can do whatever it wants with the
> > > > > keystroke.  When it is finished, it releases the suspend blocker and
> > > > > loops back to the select/poll call.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > What you describe can be done in userspace though, via a "suspend manager" 
> > > > process. Tasks reading input events will post "busy" events to stop the 
> > > > manager process from sending system into suspend. But this can be confined to 
> > > > Android userspace, leaving the kernel as is (well, kernel needs to be modified 
> > > > to not go into suspend with full queues, but that is using existing kernel 
> > > > APIs).
> > > 
> > > For that to work, you'd have to make the user space suspend manager prevent
> > > key-reading processes from emptying the queue before it orders the kernel to
> > > put the system to sleep.  Otherwise it still is possible that the queue will be
> > > emptied right at the moment it writes to /sys/power/state and the scenario
> > > described by Alan is going to happen.
> > >
> > 
> > You do exactly the same as what Alan done, but in userspace - poll, post
> > "busy" event to suspend manager, read, process, retract "busy".
> > Basically you still have the suspend blocker, but it is confined to your
> > userspace.
> 
> OK, now the question is why this is actually better.
> 
> > > Moreover, I don't think it's limited to the input subsystem, because the wakeup
> > > events may originate from the network or some other sources and all of them
> > > would require similar handling.
> > 
> > Yes, all devices (real or virtual), not only input ones, holding the
> > queues have to refuse suspending for this to work.
> 
> So, basically, you'd prefer to move the entire complexity to user space.

Yes, I want to shift it from the kernel that use used by all platforms
into platform-sepcific userspace. Especially since I do not see everyone
buying into suspend-blocker model.

> I'm not sure if that's a big win and I'm not sure anyone is actually going to
> implement it (and some drivers would still have to be modified to participate
> in this framework).

I think it is much less than sprinkling every input driver out there
with suspend blockers.

  So again, we have a hunch that the goal may be achieved
> in a different way, but at this point we'd rather need a _working_ _solution_
> (in the form of code one can build and actually use).
> 
> I don't think it's realistic to expect the Android people to go and redesign
> their stuff along the lines you've described, because they have a working
> implementation (in the kernel) that they are satisfied with.
> 

Hmm, and this is different form ever other vendor solution how?

> Now, we can reject their patches, but that's not going to cause any progress
> to happen, realistically.  Quite on the contrary, Android will continue to use
> wakelocks and Android driver writers will continue to ignore the mainline
> and the gap between the two kernel lines will only get wider and wider over
> time.
> 
> And what really is the drawback if we merge the patches?  Quite frankly,
> I don't see any.

Adding stuff that is not beneficial to anyone but a particular platform?
It is uncommon to say the least.

-- 
Dmitry
--
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