Re: [PATCH v1 05/12] PM: sleep: stats: Use step_failures[0] as a counter of successful cycles

[Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 04:11:08PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 8:52 AM Stanislaw Gruszka
> <stanislaw.gruszka@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:29:11PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > >
> > > The first (index 0) cell of the step_failures[] array in struct
> > > suspend_stats introduced previously can be used as a counter of
> > > successful suspend-resume cycles instead of the separate "success"
> > > field in it, so do that.
> > >
> > > While at it, change the type of the "fail" field in struct
> > > suspend_stats to unsigned int, because it cannot be negative.
> > >
> > > No intentional functional impact.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/suspend.h |    3 +--
> > >  kernel/power/main.c     |    9 +++++----
> > >  kernel/power/suspend.c  |    2 +-
> > >  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-pm/include/linux/suspend.h
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/suspend.h
> > > +++ linux-pm/include/linux/suspend.h
> > > @@ -55,8 +55,7 @@ enum suspend_stat_step {
> > >
> > >  struct suspend_stats {
> > >       unsigned int step_failures[SUSPEND_NR_STEPS];
> > > -     int     success;
> > <snip>
> > > -                suspend_stats.success, suspend_stats.fail);
> > > +     seq_printf(s, "success: %u\nfail: %u\n",
> > > +                suspend_stats.step_failures[SUSPEND_NONE],
> > > +                suspend_stats.fail);
> > >
> > >       for (step = SUSPEND_FREEZE; step < SUSPEND_NR_STEPS; step++)
> > >               seq_printf(s, "failed_%s: %u\n", suspend_step_names[step],
> > > Index: linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > > +++ linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > > @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ int pm_suspend(suspend_state_t state)
> > >               suspend_stats.fail++;
> > >               dpm_save_failed_errno(error);
> > >       } else {
> > > -             suspend_stats.success++;
> > > +             suspend_stats.step_failures[SUSPEND_NONE]++;
> >
> > This looks confusing for me. I think would be better keep
> > success field and just remove SUSPEND_NONE from the
> > suspend_stat_step and suspend_stat_names. Actually do
> > not introduce it, SUSPEND_NONE does not seems to be necessary
> > (SUSPEND_FREEZE can be 0).
> 
> OK
> 
> I'll need to rearrange the series for that somewhat except for the
> first two patches.

I wouldn't mind to skip this change and just remove SUSPEND_NONE
in separate patch.

> I guess it's OK to retain the R-by tags?

Yes, is OK.
 
Regards
Stanislaw