lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] PM / suspend: Count suspend-to-idle loop as sleep time
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:53 AM Mika Penttilä
<mika.penttila@nextfour.com> wrote:
>
> On 09/14/2018 11:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, September 14, 2018 10:28:44 AM CEST Mika Penttilä wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09/14/2018 09:59 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >>>
> >>> There is a difference in behavior between suspend-to-idle and
> >>> suspend-to-RAM in the timekeeping handling that leads to functional
> >>> issues. Namely, every iteration of the loop in s2idle_loop()
> >>> increases the monotinic clock somewhat, even if timekeeping_suspend()
> >>> and timekeeping_resume() are invoked from s2idle_enter(), and if
> >>> many of them are carried out in a row, the monotonic clock can grow
> >>> significantly while the system is regarded as suspended, which
> >>> doesn't happen during suspend-to-RAM and so it is unexpected and
> >>> leads to confusion and misbehavior in user space (similar to what
> >>> ensued when we tried to combine the boottime and monotonic clocks).
> >>>
> >>> To avoid that, count all iterations of the loop in s2idle_loop()
> >>> as "sleep time" and adjust the clock for that on exit from
> >>> suspend-to-idle.
> >>>
> >>> [That also covers systems on which timekeeping is not suspended
> >>> by by s2idle_enter().]
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> This is a replacement for https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10599209/
> >>>
> >>> I decided to count the entire loop in s2idle_loop() as "sleep time" as the
> >>> patch is then simpler and it also covers systems where timekeeping is not
> >>> suspended in the final step of suspend-to-idle.
> >>>
> >>> I dropped the "Fixes:" tag, because the monotonic clock delta problem
> >>> has been present on the latter since the very introduction of "freeze"
> >>> (as suspend-to-idle was referred to previously) and so this doesn't fix
> >>> any particular later commits.
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> kernel/power/suspend.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> Index: linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> >>> ===================================================================
> >>> --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/power/suspend.c
> >>> +++ linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> >>> @@ -109,8 +109,12 @@ static void s2idle_enter(void)
> >>>
> >>> static void s2idle_loop(void)
> >>> {
> >>> + ktime_t start, delta;
> >>> +
> >>> pm_pr_dbg("suspend-to-idle\n");
> >>>
> >>> + start = ktime_get();
> >>> +
> >>> for (;;) {
> >>> int error;
> >>>
> >>> @@ -150,6 +154,20 @@ static void s2idle_loop(void)
> >>> pm_wakeup_clear(false);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * If the monotonic clock difference between the start of the loop and
> >>> + * this point is too large, user space may get confused about whether or
> >>> + * not the system has been suspended and tasks may get killed by
> >>> + * watchdogs etc., so count the loop as "sleep time" to compensate for
> >>> + * that.
> >>> + */
> >>> + delta = ktime_sub(ktime_get(), start);
> >>> + if (ktime_to_ns(delta) > 0) {
> >>> + struct timespec64 timespec64_delta = ktime_to_timespec64(delta);
> >>> +
> >>> + timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64(&timespec64_delta);
> >>> + }
> >>
> >> But doesn't injecting sleep time here make monotonic clock too large by the amount of sleeptime?
> >> tick_freeze() / tick_unfreeze() already injects the sleeptime (otherwise delta would be 0).
> >
> > No, it doesn't.
> >
> > The delta here is the extra time taken by the loop which hasn't been counted
> > as sleep time yet.
>
> I said incorrectly monotonic clock, but timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64() forwards the wall time, by the amount of delta.
> Why wouldn't some other cpu update xtime when one cpu is in the loop? And if all cpus enter s2idle, tick_unfreeze()
> injects sleeptime. My point is that this extra injection makes wall time wrong, no?

OK, you're right. I got that the other way around.

So, the patch is withdrawn.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-14 12:07    [W:0.060 / U:21.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site