Re: [PATCH] alarmtimer, PM: suspend: Expose a function from

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, Jan 31 2024 at 19:13, Pranav Prasad wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am proposing a patch in which I want to return the errno code ETIME
> instead of EBUSY in enter_state() in the kernel suspend flow. Currently,
> EBUSY is returned  when an imminent alarm is pending which is checked in
> alarmtimer_suspend() in alarmtimer.c. The proposed patch series moves the
> check to enter_state() in suspend.c to catch a potential suspend failure
> early in the suspend flow. I want to replace EBUSY with ETIME to make it
> more diagnosable in userspace, and may be more appropriate considering a
> timer is about to expire.
>
> I am reaching out to get an opinion from the
> suspend maintainers if this would act as any potential risk in the suspend
> flow which only has EBUSY, EAGAIN, and EINVAL as return error codes
> currently. This has been developed as part of a patch series, and only the
> patch of interest is below this message. Any feedback or insights would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you,
> Pranav Prasad

Can you please use a cover letter instead of putting random stuff into
the changelong?

> The alarmtimer driver currently fails suspend attempts when there is an
> alarm pending within the next suspend_check_duration_ns nanoseconds, since
> the   system is expected to wake up soon anyway. The entire suspend process
> is initiated even though the system will immediately awaken. This process
> includes substantial work before the suspend fails and additional work
> afterwards to undo the failed suspend that was attempted. Therefore on
> battery-powered devices that initiate suspend attempts from userspace, it
> may be advantageous to be able to fail the suspend earlier in the suspend
> flow to avoid power consumption instead of unnecessarily doing extra work.
> As one data point, an analysis of a subset of Android devices showed that
> imminent alarms account for roughly 40% of all suspend failures on average
> leading to unnecessary power wastage.
>
> To facilitate this, expose
> function time_check_suspend_fail() from alarmtimer to be used by the power
> subsystem to perform the check earlier in the suspend flow. Perform the
> check in enter_state() and return early if an alarm is to be fired in the
> next suspend_check_duration_ns nanoseconds, failing suspend.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranav Prasad <pranavpp@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Kelly Rossmoyer <krossmo@xxxxxxxxxx>

This Signed-off-by chain is bogus.

> +/**
> + * alarmtimer_init_soonest - Initializes parameters to find soonest alarm.
> + * @min: ptr to relative time to the soonest alarm to expire
> + * @expires: ptr to absolute time of the soonest alarm to expire
> + * @type: ptr to alarm type
> + *
> + */
> +static void alarmtimer_init_soonest(ktime_t *min, ktime_t *expires, int *type)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&freezer_delta_lock, flags);
> +	*min = freezer_delta;
> +	*expires = freezer_expires;
> +	*type = freezer_alarmtype;
> +	freezer_delta = 0;
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&freezer_delta_lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * alarmtimer_get_soonest - Finds the soonest alarm to expire among the alarm bases.
> + * @min: ptr to relative time to the soonest alarm to expire
> + * @expires: ptr to absolute time of the soonest alarm to expire
> + * @type: ptr to alarm type
> + *
> + */
> +static void alarmtimer_get_soonest(ktime_t *min, ktime_t *expires, int *type)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +	unsigned long flags;

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html#variable-declarations

Aside of that 'flags' wants to be in the loop scope.

> +
> +	/* Find the soonest timer to expire */
> +	for (i = 0; i < ALARM_NUMTYPE; i++) {
> +		struct alarm_base *base = &alarm_bases[i];
> +		struct timerqueue_node *next;
> +		ktime_t delta;
> +
> +		spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock, flags);
> +		next = timerqueue_getnext(&base->timerqueue);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock, flags);
> +		if (!next)
> +			continue;
> +		delta = ktime_sub(next->expires, base->get_ktime());
> +		if (!(*min) || (delta < *min)) {

The inner brackets are pointless

> +			*expires = next->expires;
> +			*min = delta;
> +			*type = i;
> +		}
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * time_check_suspend_fail - Check if suspend should be failed due to an
> + * alarm within the next suspend_check_duration nanoseconds.
> + *
> + * Returns error if suspend should be failed, else returns 0.
> + */
> +int time_check_suspend_fail(void)
> +{
> +	ktime_t min, expires;
> +	int type;

Why is this unconditional and not checking RTC dev?

> +	/* Initialize parameters to find soonest timer */
> +	alarmtimer_init_soonest(&min, &expires, &type);

How does that make sense? That function evaluates the freezer state, but
there is nothing frozen when this is invoked.

> +	/* Find the soonest timer to expire */
> +	alarmtimer_get_soonest(&min, &expires, &type);
> +
> +	if (min == 0)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (ktime_to_ns(min) < suspend_check_duration_ns)
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(time_check_suspend_fail);

What is this export for?

> +
>  /**
>   * alarmtimer_get_rtcdev - Return selected rtcdevice
>   *
> @@ -296,49 +374,24 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(alarm_expires_remaining);
>  static int alarmtimer_suspend(struct device *dev)
>  {
..
> +	/* Initialize parameters to find soonest timer */
> +	alarmtimer_init_soonest(&min, &expires, &type);

This wants to be _after_ the RTC dev check, no?

>  	rtc = alarmtimer_get_rtcdev();
>  	/* If we have no rtcdev, just return */
>  	if (!rtc)
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	/* Find the soonest timer to expire */
> +	alarmtimer_get_soonest(&min, &expires, &type);
>  
> -	if (ktime_to_ns(min) < suspend_check_duration_ns) {
> -		pm_wakeup_event(dev, suspend_check_duration_ns/NSEC_PER_MSEC);

What injects the pm_wakeup_event after this change?

Thanks,

        tglx