lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][v3] mfd: intel-lpss: Avoid resuming runtime-suspended lpss unnecessarily
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> Hi Lee,
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> > We have report that the intel_lpss_prepare() takes too much time during
> > suspend, and this is because we first resume the devices from runtime
> > suspend by resume_lpss_device(), to make sure they are in proper state
> > before system suspend, which takes 100ms for each LPSS devices(PCI power
> > state from D3_cold to D0). And since resume_lpss_device() resumes the
> > devices synchronously, we might get huge latency if we have many
> > LPSS devices.
> >
> > So first try is to use pm_request_resume() instead, to make the runtime
> > resume process asynchronously. Unfortunately the asynchronous runtime
> > resume relies on pm_wq, which is freezed at early stage. So we choose
> > another method, that is to avoid resuming runtime-suspended devices,
> > if they are already runtime suspended. This is safe because for LPSS
> > driver, the runtime suspend and system suspend are of the same
> > hook - i.e., intel_lpss_suspend(). And moreover, this device is
> > neither runtime wakeup source nor system wakeup source.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
>
> If this is fine with you and you'd like to apply it, please feel free
> to add my ACK to it.
>
> Alternatively, if you'd prefer me to apply it, please let me know.

You want this in for v3.9?

I just started applying patches for v3.10.

If you're certain there are 0% chance of regressions, I will still
apply this for v3.9 with your Ack.

> > ---
> > drivers/mfd/intel-lpss.c | 9 +++++++++
> > include/linux/pm.h | 7 +++++++
> > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/intel-lpss.c b/drivers/mfd/intel-lpss.c
> > index 41b1138..2583db8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/intel-lpss.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/intel-lpss.c
> > @@ -485,6 +485,15 @@ static int resume_lpss_device(struct device *dev, void *data)
> > int intel_lpss_prepare(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > /*
> > + * This is safe because:
> > + * 1. The runtime suspend and system suspend
> > + * are of the same hook.
> > + * 2. This device is neither runtime wakeup source
> > + * nor system wakeup source.
> > + */
> > + if (pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev))
> > + return DPM_DIRECT_COMPLETE;
> > + /*
> > * Resume both child devices before entering system sleep. This
> > * ensures that they are in proper state before they get suspended.
> > */
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pm.h b/include/linux/pm.h
> > index 06eb353..4a788b4 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pm.h
> > @@ -786,4 +786,11 @@ enum dpm_order {
> > DPM_ORDER_DEV_LAST,
> > };
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Return this from system suspend/hibernation ->prepare() callback to
> > + * request the core to leave the device runtime-suspended during system
> > + * suspend if possible.
> > + */
> > +#define DPM_DIRECT_COMPLETE 1
> > +
> > #endif /* _LINUX_PM_H */
> > --
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael

--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-30 02:28    [W:0.956 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site