Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

[Arve Hjønnevåg]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Saturday 21 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Friday 20 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Friday 20 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > It might have to be platform-specific.  The Android people seem to have a
>> >> >> >> > pretty good idea of what criteria will work for them.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'd really like to know in what situations Androind is supposed to suspend
>> >> >> >> automatically.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It might be better to ask in what situations Android is _not_ supposed
>> >> >> > to sleep automatically.  In other words, in what situations is a
>> >> >> > wakelock acquired?  Since the whole system is only a phone, this
>> >> >> > question should have a reasonably well-defined answer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On an android phone, any code that needs to run when the screen is off
>> >> >> must hold a wakelock (directly or indirectly). In general if an
>> >> >> application or the system is processing an event that may cause a user
>> >> >> notification (new email, incoming phone call, alarm, etc.) it needs to
>> >> >> prevent suspend. But, we also use wakelocks to upload stats or
>> >> >> download system updates in the background, and for media player or
>> >> >> (gps) data logging applications.
>> >> >
>> >> > All of this doesn't seem to require wakelocks acuired from kernel space.
>> >> > What do you need those wakelocks for?
>> >>
>> >> Most events do not originate in user-space. Alarms start in our alarm
>> >> driver which locks a wakelock when its timer interrupt occurs. This
>> >> wakelock stays locked until the user-space alarm manager calls the
>> >> driver to wait for the next alarm. I've described how input events are
>> >> handled before. Without kernel wakelocks, if the user space power
>> >> manager had already turned off the screen and decided to suspend right
>> >> before a wakeup key is pressed, then that key could sit in the
>> >> in-kernel input queue until another key is pressed. Even if the
>> >> user-space thread read the key event before being frozen, it cannot
>> >> abort the suspend operation that was already started.
>> >
>> > OK, so what about the following approach:
>> >
>> > * Keep the decision making logic (power manager etc.) in user space.  Reasons:
>> >  - It may be arbitrarily complicated
>> >  - It may include such things as s2ram quirks or hal quirks needed for some
>> >    graphics adapters
>>
>> I don't using wakelocks in any different in this respect. When user
>> space decides that it is ok for the kernel to suspend it should have
>> performed all theses steps in both cases.
>
> If automatic suspend is to be started by the kernel, you have to make sure
> that at least one wakelock is held until these steps are completed.  That may
> be somewhat tricky in general.

That is not tricky. If your code holds a wakelock, then at least one
wakelock is held.

>
>> > * Have a per-process (per-task or per-thread group, but the former would be
>> >  easier IMO) "I_do_not_want_automatic_suspend_to_occur" flag.
>>
>> A per-process (thread group) flag allows wakelocks to be implemented
>> in a user space library. A per-thread flag does not. However, I don't
>> see much benefit in tying this to a process instead of using a file
>> descriptor.
>
> Using a flag would allow us to remove the window between checking the
> wakelocks and freezing tasks (in principle a task may take a wakelock just
> before it's frozen).

You can check if there are wakelocks held from the same spot as you
check your flag.

>
>> >
>> > * Add a new callback, say ->acknowledge(), to the set of each driver's PM
>> >  operations, that will be called to check if the driver has anything against
>> >  automatic suspend (true - suspend can happen right now, false - suspend can't
>> >  happen).
>> >
>> > * Introduce /sys/power/sleep that will work like /sys/power/state, but:
>> >  - First, it will call ->acknowledge() for each driver (via bus types) to
>> >    check if any of them wants to postpone the suspend (this will prevent tasks
>> >    from being frozen unnecessarily if it is known in advance that the suspend
>> >    should not happen at the moment).
>> >  - Next, it will check the "I_do_not_want_automatic_suspend_to_occur" flag
>> >    of each process and the suspend will be aborted if it is true for any of
>> >    them (quite frankly, I think that should be integrated with the freezer,
>> >    in particular the tasks that have TIF_FREEZE set shouldn't be able to set
>> >    this flag and it should be checked in the freezer loop for every task with
>> >    TIF_FREEZE unset).
>> >  - Next, it will proceed with suspending just like /sys/power/state does (the
>> >    drivers that missed the opportunity to abort the suspend by returning
>> >    'false' from ->acknowledge() can still abort the suspend by failing their
>> >    ->suspend() routines).
>> >
>> > Then, the decision making logic will be able to use /sys/power/sleep whenever
>> > it wishes to and the kernel will be able to refuse to suspend if it's not
>> > desirable at the moment.
>> >
>> > It seems to be flexible enough to me.
>>
>> This seems flexible enough to avoid race conditions, but it forces the
>> user space power manager to poll when the kernel refuse suspend.
>
> And if the kernel is supposed to start automatic suspend, it has to monitor
> all of the wakelocks.  IMO, it's better to allow the power manager to poll the
> kernel if it refuses to suspend.

What is better about polling in userspace?

>
>> Also, like my original wakelock patches, it breaks sleep requests through
>> /sys/power/state when there are input events queued.
>
> The idea is to have both /sys/power/state and /sys/power/sleep at the same
> time, where /sys/power/state will work just like it does right now.  Sure,
> there must be mutual exclusion between the two, but that's a matter of
> implementation IMO.

If you want to only prevent suspend though one interface, you have to
also pass information to the driver about its suspend hook is being
called so it can conditionally return -EBUSY. The wakelock interface
requires less code in each driver.


-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/