Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Saturday 19 December 2009, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:43:29PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 December 2009, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 03:11:05AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Give a real example that matters.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'll try.  Let -> denote child-parent relationships and assume dpm_list looks
> > > > > > like this:
> > > > > 
> > > > > No. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I mean something real - something like
> > > > > 
> > > > >  - if you run on a non-PC with two USB buses behind non-PCI controllers.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  - device xyz.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > If this applies to _resume_ only, then I agree, but the Arjan's data clearly
> > > > > > show that serio devices take much more time to suspend than USB.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I mean in general - something where you actually have hard data that some 
> > > > > device really needs anythign more than my one-liner, and really _needs_ 
> > > > > some complex infrastructure.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not "let's imagine a case like xyz".
> > > > 
> > > > As I said I would, I made some measurements.
> > > > 
> > > > I measured the total time of suspending and resuming devices as shown by the
> > > > code added by this patch:
> > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/rafael/suspend-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=c1b8fc0a8bff7707c10f31f3d26bfa88e18ccd94;hp=087dbf5f079f1b55cbd3964c9ce71268473d5b67
> > > > on two boxes, HP nx6325 and MSI Wind U100 (hardware-wise they are quite
> > > > different and the HP was running 64-bit kernel and user space).
> > > > 
> > > > I took four cases into consideration:
> > > > (1) synchronous suspend and resume (/sys/power/pm_async = 0)
> > > > (2) asynchronous suspend and resume as introduced by the async branch at:
> > > >     http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/rafael/suspend-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/async
> > > > (3) asynchronous suspend and resume like in (2), but with your one-liner setting
> > > >     the power.async_suspend flag for PCI bridges on top
> > > > (4) asynchronous suspend and resume like in (2), but with an extra patch that
> > > >     is appended on top
> > > > 
> > > > For those tests I set power.async_suspend for all USB devices, all serio input
> > > > devices, the ACPI battery and the USB PCI controllers (to see the impact of the
> > > > one-liner, if any).
> > > > 
> > > > I carried out 5 consecutive suspend-resume cycles (started from under X) on
> > > > each box in each case, and the raw data are here (all times in milliseconds):
> > > > http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/data/async-suspend.pdf
> > > > 
> > > > The summarized data are below (the "big" numbers are averages and the +/-
> > > > numbers are standard deviations, all in milliseconds):
> > > > 
> > > > 			HP nx6325		MSI Wind U100
> > > > 
> > > > sync suspend		1482 (+/- 40)	1180 (+/- 24)
> > > > sync resume		2955 (+/- 2)	3597 (+/- 25)
> > > > 
> > > > async suspend		1553 (+/- 49)	1177 (+/- 32)
> > > > async resume		2692 (+/- 326)	3556  (+/- 33)
> > > > 
> > > > async+one-liner suspend	1600 (+/- 39)	1212 (+/- 41)
> > > > async+one-liner resume	2692 (+/- 324)	3579 (+/- 24)
> > > > 
> > > > async+extra suspend	1496 (+/- 37)	1217 (+/- 38)
> > > > async+extra resume	1859 (+/- 114)	1923 (+/- 35)
> > > > 
> > > > So, in my opinion, with the above set of "async" devices, it doesn't
> > > > make sense to do async suspend at all, because the sync suspend is actually
> > > > the fastest on both machines.
> > > 
> > > I think the async suspend is not asynchronous enough then - what kind of
> > > time do you get if you simply comment out call to psmouse_reset() in
> > > drivers/input/mouse/psmouse-base.c:psmouse_cleanup()?  (Just for testing
> > > purposes only, I don't think we want to do that by default.)
> > 
> > The problem apparently is that the i8042 suspend/resume is synchronous.
> > 
> > Do you think it's safe to mark it as asynchronous?
> > 
> 
> Umm.. there lie dragons. There is an implicit relationship between i8042
> and PNP/ACPI devices representing keyboard and mouse ports, and I am not
> sure how happy i8042 (and most importantly the BIOS) will be if they get
> shut down before i8042. Also there is EC which is in theory independent
> but in practice not so much.

I see.

Is this possible to identify ACPI devices that should wait for the i8042
suspend and that should be waited for by it on resume?

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