lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] PM / core: Direct DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND optimization
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 19 December 2017 at 12:13, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On 10 December 2017 at 01:00, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> Make the PM core avoid invoking the "late" and "noirq" system-wide
>>>> suspend (or analogous) callbacks provided by device drivers directly
>>>> for devices with DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND set that are in runtime
>>>> suspend during the "late" and "noirq" phases of system-wide suspend
>>>> (or analogous) transitions. That is only done for devices without
>>>> any middle-layer "late" and "noirq" suspend callbacks (to avoid
>>>> confusing the middle layer if there is one).
>>>>
>>>> The underlying observation is that runtime PM is disabled for devices
>>>> during the "late" and "noirq" system-wide suspend phases, so if they
>>>> remain in runtime suspend from the "late" phase forward, it doesn't
>>>> make sense to invoke the "late" and "noirq" callbacks provided by
>>>> the drivers for them (arguably, the device is already suspended and
>>>> in the right state). Thus, if the remaining driver suspend callbacks
>>>> are to be invoked directly by the core, they can be skipped.
>>>>
>>
>> It looks like I'm consistently failing to explain my point clearly enough. :-)
>>
>>> As I have stated earlier, this isn't going to solve the general case,
>>> as the above change log seems to state.

No, it doesn't, as long as drivers follow the documentation.

So your concern seems to be "What if I don't follow the
documentation?" which, honestly, is not something I can address. :-)

>> Well, it doesn't say that or anything similar, at least to my eyes.
>>
>> The observation is that if you have set DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND, then
>> you need to be prepared for your ->suspend_late and ->suspend_noirq to
>> be skipped (because the ACPI PM domain does that and you may happen to
>> work with it, for example) if the device is already suspended at the
>> beginning of the "late suspend" phase. That's already documented.
>>
>> Given the above, and the fact that there is not much to be done for a
>> suspended device in ->suspend_late and ->suspend_noirq, why can't the
>> core skip these callbacks too if there's no middle layer?
>>
>> But the reason why I really need this is because
>> i2c-designware-platdrv can work both with the ACPI PM domain and
>> standalone and I need it to be handled consistently in both cases.
>
> Yeah, I understand that.
>
>>
>>> I think we really need to do that, before adding yet another system suspend/resume optimization
>>> path in the PM core.
>>
>> So what exactly is the technical argument in the above?
>
> As stated, when the driver needs additional operations to be done, it
> all falls a part.

If the driver *needs* such operations to be done, then it *should*
*not* set DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND as per the existing documentation.

>
>>
>>> The main reason is that lots of drivers have additional operations to
>>> perform, besides making sure that its device is put into a "runtime
>>> suspended state" during system suspend. In other words, skipping
>>> system suspend callbacks (and likewise for system resume) is to me the
>>> wrong solution to mitigate these problems.
>>>
>>>> This change really makes it possible for, say, platform device
>>>> drivers to re-use runtime PM suspend and resume callbacks by
>>>> pointing ->suspend_late and ->resume_early, respectively (and
>>>> possibly the analogous hibernation-related callback pointers too),
>>>> to them without adding any extra "is the device already suspended?"
>>>> type of checks to the callback routines, as long as they will be
>>>> invoked directly by the core.
>>>
>>> Certainly there are drivers that could start to deploying this
>>> solution, because at the moment they don't have any additional
>>> operations to perform at system suspend. But what about the rest,
>>> don't we care about them?
>>
>> We do, somewhat. :-)
>>
>>> Moreover, what happens when/if a driver that has deployed this
>>> solution, starts being used on a new SoC and then additional
>>> operations during system suspend becomes required (for example
>>> pinctrls that needs to be put in a system sleep state)? Then
>>> everything falls apart, doesn't it?
>>
>> Then you runtime-resume the device in ->suspend() and the remaining
>> callbacks will run for you just fine.
>
> Well, this proves my concern.
>
> Even if the driver has additional operations to perform, why should it
> have to runtime resume its device to have the callbacks to be invoked?
> That may be a waste in both time and power.
>
> No, this isn't good enough, sorry.

What isn't good enough for what?

>>
>> And IMO running "late" and "noirq" system suspend callbacks on a
>> suspended device is super-fragile anyway as they generally need to
>> distinguish between the "suspended" and "not suspended" cases
>> consistently and what they do may affect the children or the parent of
>> the device in ways that are difficult to predict in general. So, I'd
>> rather not do that in any case.
>
> That may be the case for the ACPI PM domain, but I don't see an issue
> when devices are being attached to a more trivial middle layer/PM
> domain.

There always is a problem.

Yes, you can ignore it, but it doesn't make it automatically go away.

Also, what forces you to set DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND anyway?

Thanks,
Rafael

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-19 17:30    [W:0.100 / U:1.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site