Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration

[david]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Florian Mickler wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 04:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
> david@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, Florian Mickler wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:19:08 +0200
> > > Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2010/6/6  <david@xxxxxxx>:
> > > >
> > > > > as an example (taken from this thread).
> > > > >
> > > > > system A needs to wake up to get a battery reading, store it and go back to
> > > > > sleep, It does so every 10 seconds. But when it does so it only runs the one
> > > > > process and then goes back to sleep.
> > > > >
> > > > > system B has the same need, but wakes up every 10 minutes. but when it does
> > > > > so it fully wakes up and this allows the mail app to power up the radio,
> > > > > connect to the Internet and start checking for new mail before oppurtunistic
> > > > > sleep shuts things down (causing the mail check to fail)
> > > > >
> > > > > System A will last considerably longer on a battery than System B.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly, thanks for pointing out the specific example :)
> > > >
> > > > ~Vitaly
> > >
> > > This does not affect suspend_blockers nor does suspend_blockers
> > > interfere with that.
> > >
> > > Suspend_blockers allow the system to suspend ("mem">/sys/power/state
> > > suspend), when the userspace decides that the device is not in use.
> > >
> > > So implementing suspend_blockers support does not impact any
> > > optimizations done to either system A nor system B.
> >
> > Actually, it does.
> >
> > system A is what's being proposed by kernel developers, where the
> > untrusted stuff is in a different cgroup and what puts the system to sleep
> > is 'normal' power management. It doesn't sleep as long, but when it wakes
> > up the untrusted stuff is still frozen, so it doesn't stay awake long, or
> > do very much.
> >
> > System B is suspend blockers where you are either awake or asleep, and
> > when you wake up you wake up fully, but oppertunistic sleep can interrupt
> > untrusted processes at any time. The system sleeps longer (as fewer things
> > can wake it), but when it wakes up it's fully awake.
> >
> > David Lang
>
> You say, that coming back from suspend takes the system to full power
> (and everything runs) before it begins the descend into
> runtime-low-power?
> But are you referring to the fact that coming back
> from suspend starts in the zero-idle-state (i.e. "consumes extra
> power") or that all processes run when it is not suspended?

I am referring to the fact that with suspend blockers and opertunistic 
suspend all processes start running when it's not suspended (because they 
were all running when it was suspended)

If instead the system only wakes up the trusted processes to handle 
whatever woke the system up and is then idle again, it spends less power 
and time while awake.

> Because the latter would of course (theretically) profit from the
> framework-controlled-cgroup-freeze/thaw (with and without
> opportunistic suspend) while the former should be a problem that
> both opportunistic suspend as well as suspend-from-idle have. Or not?
>
> So, here is the question I'm asking myself: If System A were to be
> complemented by suspend_blockers, wouldn't it still be better?

not neccessarily.

having suspend blockers inside the kernel adds significant complexity, it's 
worth it only if the complexity buys you enough. In this case the question 
is if the suspend blockers would extend the sleep time enough more to 
matter. As per my other e-mail, this is an area with rapidly diminishing 
returns as the sleep times get longer.

> With System A you could try to do a really sophisticated
> power-management scheme and so on... but as soon as you allow 3rd-Party
> Apps, how do you manage their cross-dependencies? I.e. you can not
> automatically detect when App1 needs App2 to function.
> You need to allow all 3rd-Party apps to run as a group.
>
> So you can perhaps partition your software stack into "untrusted
> applications" and different groups of software with audited
> dependencies.
>
> If one group interacts with another group (as will be the case at least
> with the "untrusted applications" group) you have to have them both
> running at the same time.
>
> This really gets pretty complex. Do you really think something like
> this is better than a simple suspend? (I.e. suspend blockers or
> having just one group)

even if all you do is have two groups (trusted and untrusted), all you 
need to do is to watch for the interaction between these two. Put the 
third-party apps in the untrusted group.

depending on what security you have available, you may be able to define 
more, smaller groups after using the security to make sure that there is 
no overlap between them

> Suppose you implement suspend blockers with a cgroup freeze... how do
> you implement the freeze/thaw control?

I thought the answer had been provided, one of the trusted apps implements 
the freeze/thaw, and everything happens in userspace.

> Cheers,
> Flo
>
> p.s.: do you see an possibility for any kind of "priority inheritance"
> in the cgroup scheme? I don't.

is there a need for it?

David Lang

--
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/