Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take two
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Thu Aug 05 2010 - 19:35:51 EST
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 06:37:15AM -0700, Brian Swetland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:18 AM, <david@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> Continuing to rush in where angels fear to tread...
> > here here :-)
> >> o "PM-driving application" are applications that are permitted
> >> to acquire suspend blockers on Android. Verion 8 of the
> >> suspend-blocker patch seems to use group permissions to determine
> >> which applications are classified as power aware. More generally,
> >> PM-driving applications seem to be those that have permission
> >> to exert some control over the system's sleep state.
> >> Note that an application might be power-oblivious on one Android
> >> device and PM-driving on another, depending on whether the user
> >> allows that application to acquire suspend blockers. The
> >> classification might even change over time. For example, a
> >> user might give an application PM-driving status initially,
> >> but change his or her mind after some experience with that
> >> application.
> > One thing that I think it's important to document here is theinformation
> > that Brian provided in response to your question about how many (or actually
> > how few) applications fall into this catefory
> I think I need to clarify here. When I say "app" in the context of
> Android, I mean "an application running under the Android app model --
> sandboxed under a per-app or app-group uid", not "a process". The
> vast majority of processes on an Android device are "apps" in this
> sense, but some (usually low level services or daemons) are not. Also
> I use "wakelock" as a place holder for "suspend blocker" or whatever
> exact API we're trying to hash out here, because it's shorter and I'm
> Any app may obtain a wakelock through the standard Android APIs,
> provided it has permission to do so. In the current implementation,
> apps obtain wakelocks via making a binder RPC call to the power
> manager service which tracks high level wakelocks (for apps!) and
> backs them by a single kernel wakelock. Access control is at the RPC
> level. This implementation could be changed to have the app API
> simply open /dev/suspendblock or whatnot, with access control enforced
> by unix permissions (the framework would arrange for apps with the
> android "can block sleep" permission to be in a unix group that has
> access to the device).
> For native services (native daemons that run "underneath" the android
> app framework -- for example the media service, the radio interface,
> etc), the kernel interface is used directly (ok, usually via a very
> thin C convenience wrapper).
Thank you for the added detail on Android user-space operation!!!
> > Quote:
> >> I should have asked this earlier... What exactly are the apps'
> >> compatibility constraints? Source-level APIs? Byte-code class-library
> >> invocations? C/C++ dynamic linking? C/C++ static linking (in other
> >> words, syscall)?
> > For Java/Dalvik apps, the wakelock API is pertty high level -- it
> > talks to a service via RPC (Binder) that actually interacts with the
> > kernel. Changing the basic kernel<->userspace interface (within
> > reason) is not unthinkable. For example, Arve's suspend_blocker patch
> > provides a device interface rather than the proc interface the older
> > wakelock patches use. We'd have to make some userspace changes to
> > support that but they're pretty low level and minor.
> > In the current model, only a few processes need to specifically
> > interact with the kernel (the power management service in the
> > system_server, possibly the media_server and the radio interface
> > glue). A model where every process needs to have a bunch of
> > instrumentation is not very desirable from our point of view. We
> > definitely do need reasonable statistics in order to enable debugging
> > and to enable reporting to endusers (through the Battery Usage UI)
> > what's keeping the device awake.
> > Brian
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/