Message-ID: <CAOuDEK1hiVyFuZ__YFnOhfWV_JqMw83wCtPnX2a1xj6pb4Q5QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2023 17:54:01 +0800
From:   Guan-Yu Lin <guanyulin@...gle.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        len.brown@...el.com, pavel@....cz, heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com,
        mkl@...gutronix.de, hadess@...ess.net, mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr,
        ivan.orlov0322@...il.com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        pumahsu@...gle.com, raychi@...gle.com, albertccwang@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rpm: pm: enable PM_RPM_EXCEPTION config flag

On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 10:10 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 8:08 AM Guan-Yu Lin <guanyulin@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 11:56 PM Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 04:45:43PM +0800, Guan-Yu Lin wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the questions. Let me first introduce my motivation for
> > > > proposing this feature. We can discuss the implementation details later.
> > > >
> > > > Motivation:
> > > > Currently, system PM operations always override runtime PM operations.
> > > > As runtime PM reflects the power status of devices, there is a
> > > > possibility that runtime PM states that a device is in use, but system
> > > > PM decides to suspend it. Up to now, we have assumed that a device can't
> > > > function without resources from the system, so the device should acquire
> > > > a wakelock to prevent this from happening. However, what if the device
> > >
> > > [From the fact that you mention wakelocks, I assume that you're trying
> > > to implement something for Android systems rather than Linux systems
> > > in general.]
> > >
> > > > does not need the system's support to function? Or only needs limited
> > > > resources (e.g., only limited power source or clock) to function? In this
> > > > situation, we would like to keep the device on but allow the system to
> > > > suspend. This is an example where we would like devices to follow runtime
> > > > PM rather than system PM.
> > >
> > > To put it more simply, you want a way to leave some devices in an active
> > > state while the rest of the system is suspended.  It's not clear why you
> > > have dragged runtime PM into the discussion (apart from the obvious fact
> > > that you won't want to keep a device active if it isn't active already).
> > >
> >
> > The determination of which device should remain active when the system
> > suspends can be based on various factors. One straightforward approach
> > is to consider the device's runtime pm state.
>
> Not really.  The runtime PM status has no bearing on whether or not
> the device should remain active over a system suspend/resume cycle.
>

Thanks for the information.

> > Alternatively, we could
> > explore more elaborate techniques that consider additional criteria.
>
> In fact, the device's driver decides what is going to happen to it
> during the system suspend transition.  It very well may decide to
> leave the device in the operational state, but it needs to take
> dependencies between into account.

Seems like it would be better for each device to modify its suspend/
resume code rather than designing a generic framework. As the specific
use cases of each component are not yet fully understood, the device
driver provides ample flexibility for customization at this stage.

>
> > > This sounds like a major change, not something to be done with a simple
> > > override.  You should discuss it with Rafael Wysocki and the linux-pm
> > > mailing list before trying to implement anything.
> > >
> > > > Feature Supported:
> > > > 1. Devices could control the priority of system PM and runtime PM during
> > > >    runtime.
> > >
> > > This seems like a totally unnecessary side issue.  Forget about runtime
> > > PM for the time being and concentrate instead on which devices you want
> > > to keep active.
> > >
> > > > 2. The control should be at the device level, meaning that different
> > > >    devices should control their own priorities.
> > > >
> > > > Goal of This Patch:
> > > > 1. Design a framework to support features above.
> > > > 2. Apply it into usb for demonstration.
> > >
> > > You may find that it is easier (and less work in the long run) to design
> > > the general framework and get it working than to concentrate on one
> > > particular subsystem.
> > >
> > > Alan Stern
> >
> > The big picture is "a way to leave some devices in an active state
> > while the rest of the system is suspended", I think it could be
> > separated into:
> > (1) Each system should be able to choose which device(s) is included
> >     in this feature.
> > (2) For devices chosen in (1), each of them should have the flexibility
> >     to determine when it will not suspend with the system, not just
> >     always being active when the system suspends.
>
> A specific use case, please.

We have a sub-system sharing some devices (e.g., usb controller, host
controller) with the main system. In the current system power
management framework, when the main system suspends, the devices will
suspend, too. However, sometimes these devices are still used by the
sub-system, so we don't want the main system to always suspend the
devices.

Regards,
Guan-Yu

Powered by blists - more mailing lists