Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 7)

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday 18 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/5/18 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>:
> > On Tuesday 18 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> 2010/5/17 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>:
> >> > On Monday 17 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> 2010/5/14 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>:
> >> >> > On Friday 14 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> >> This patch series adds a suspend-block api that provides the same
> >> >> >> functionality as the android wakelock api. This version has some
> >> >> >> changes from, or requested by, Rafael. The most notable changes are:
> >> >> >> - DEFINE_SUSPEND_BLOCKER and suspend_blocker_register have been added
> >> >> >>   for statically allocated suspend blockers.
> >> >> >> - suspend_blocker_destroy is now called suspend_blocker_unregister
> >> >> >> - The user space mandatory _INIT ioctl has been replaced with an
> >> >> >>   optional _SET_NAME ioctl.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I kept the ack and reviewed by tags on two of the patches even though
> >> >> >> there were a few cosmetic changes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for the patches, I think they are in a pretty good shape now.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That said, I'd like the changelogs to be a bit more descriptive, at least for
> >> >> > patch [1/8].  I think it should explain (in a few words) what the purpose of
> >> >> > the feature is and what problems it solves that generally a combination of
> >> >> > runtime PM and cpuidle is not suitable for in your opinion.  IOW, why you
> >> >> > think we need that feature.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> How about:
> >> >>
> >> >> PM: Add opportunistic suspend support.
> >> >
> >> > "PM: Opportunistic suspend support" would be sufficient IMO.
> >> >
> >> > Now, I'd start with the motivation.  Like "Power management features present
> >> > in the current mainline kernel are insufficient to get maximum possible energy
> >> > savings on some platforms, such as Android, because ..." (here go explanations
> >> > why this is the case in your opinion).
> >> >
> >> > Next, "To allow Android and similar platforms to save more energy than they
> >> > currently can save using the mainline kernel, introduce a mechanism by which
> >> > the system is automatically suspended (i.e. put into a system-wide sleep state)
> >> > whenever it's not doing useful work, called opportunistic suspend".
> >> >
> >> > "For this purpose introduce the suspend blockers framework allowing the
> >> > kernel's power management subsystem to decide when it is desirable to suspend
> >> > the system (i.e. when useful work is not being done).  Add an API that ..."
> >> >
> >>
> >> PM: Opportunistic suspend support.
> >>
> >> Power management features present in the current mainline kernel are
> >> insufficient to get maximum possible energy savings on some platforms,
> >> such as Android, because low power states can only safely be entered
> >> from idle.
> >
> > Do you mean CPU low-power states or system low-power states here?
> >
> I think either.

The statement is not true for system low-power states (or sleep states),
because generally (ie. on many platforms) they aren't entered from idle.
Suspend is for entering them.

So, there is a difference and the explanation can go like this: "... to achieve
maximum energy savings one has to put all I/O devices and the CPU into
low-power states, but the CPU can only be put into a low-power state from
idle.  This, in turn, means that the CPU leaves the low-power state on
interrupts triggered by periodic timers and user space processes that use
polling.  It turns out, however, that many of these events causing the CPU to
leave the low-power state aren't essential for the desired system functionality
and from the power management point of view it would be better if they didn't
occur".

> > I'd add more details here, because it may not be completely clear to the
> > (interested) reader why entering these states only from idle affects the
> > possibility to achieve maximum energy savings.  I _guess_ you mean that
> > using idle is not sufficient, because there are so many wakeups on the
> > systems in question that more savings are still possible.  Is that correct?
> >
> Yes, is this not what the next paragraph explains?

Well, it doesn't explain that.  It explains why idle + runtime PM is generally
insufficient and is using that as an argument (at least in my view).

> >> Suspend, in its current form, cannot be used, since wakeup
> >> events that occur right after initiating suspend will not be processed
> >> until another possibly unrelated event wake up the system again.
> >
> > I think the word "cannot" is too strong here.  I'd say "not suitable" instead
> 
> I don't think it is too strong, but I can change it.
> 
> > and I'd say what kind of wakeup events I meant more precisely (there are
> > events that wake up a CPU from idle and events that wake up the system from
> > suspend).
> 
> When I say wakeup events I mean events that do both. Is there another
> term for this, or should I just add: "since wakeup events (events that
> wake the CPU from idle and the system from suspend)..."

Yes, that would clarify things IMO.

Thanks,
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/