Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] PM / sleep: Mechanism to avoid resuming runtime-suspended devices unnecessarily

Jacob Pan
2014-05-15T13:09:56Z

On Thu, 15 May 2014 13:11:15 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 03:24:21 PM Jacob Pan wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 May 2014 03:10:19 +0200
> > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > >
> > > Currently, some subsystems (e.g. PCI and the ACPI PM domain) have
> > > to resume all runtime-suspended devices during system suspend,
> > > mostly because those devices may need to be reprogrammed due to
> > > different wakeup settings for system sleep and for runtime PM.
> > >
> > > For some devices, though, it's OK to remain in runtime suspend
> > > throughout a complete system suspend/resume cycle (if the device
> > > was in runtime suspend at the start of the cycle). We would like
> > > to do this whenever possible, to avoid the overhead of extra
> > > power-up and power-down events.
> > >
> > > However, problems may arise because the device's descendants may
> > > require it to be at full power at various points during the cycle.
> > > Therefore the most straightforward way to do this safely is if the
> > > device and all its descendants can remain runtime suspended until
> > > the complete stage of system resume.
> > >
> > > To this end, introduce a new device PM flag, power.direct_complete
> > > and modify the PM core to use that flag as follows.
> > >
> > > If the ->prepare() callback of a device returns a positive number,
> > > the PM core will regard that as an indication that it may leave
> > > the device runtime-suspended. It will then check if the system
> > > power transition in progress is a suspend (and not hibernation in
> > > particular) and if the device is, indeed, runtime-suspended. In
> > > that case, the PM core will set the device's
> > > power.direct_complete flag. Otherwise it will clear
> > > power.direct_complete for the device and it also will later clear
> > > it for the device's parent (if there's one).
> > >
> > > Next, the PM core will not invoke the ->suspend()
> > > ->suspend_late(), ->suspend_irq(), ->resume_irq(),
> > > ->resume_early(), or ->resume() callbacks for all devices having
> > > power.direct_complete set. It will invoke their ->complete()
> > > callbacks, however, and those callbacks are then responsible for
> > > resuming the devices as appropriate, if necessary.
> > >
> > > Changelog partly based on an Alan Stern's description of the idea
> > > (http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=139940466625569&w=2).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/base/power/main.c | 45
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > > include/linux/pm.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 29
> > > insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-pm/include/linux/pm.h
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/pm.h
> > > +++ linux-pm/include/linux/pm.h
> > > @@ -546,6 +546,7 @@ struct dev_pm_info {
> > > bool is_late_suspended:1;
> > > bool ignore_children:1;
> > > bool early_init:1; /*
> > > Owned by the PM core */
> > > + bool direct_complete:1; /*
> > > Owned by the PM core */ spinlock_t lock;
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > > struct list_head entry;
> > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > > @@ -479,7 +479,7 @@ static int device_resume_noirq(struct de
> > > TRACE_DEVICE(dev);
> > > TRACE_RESUME(0);
> > >
> > > - if (dev->power.syscore)
> > > + if (dev->power.syscore || dev->power.direct_complete)
> > > goto Out;
> > >
> > > if (!dev->power.is_noirq_suspended)
> > > @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int device_resume_early(struct de
> > > TRACE_DEVICE(dev);
> > > TRACE_RESUME(0);
> > >
> > > - if (dev->power.syscore)
> > > + if (dev->power.syscore || dev->power.direct_complete)
> > > goto Out;
> > >
> > > if (!dev->power.is_late_suspended)
> > > @@ -732,7 +732,7 @@ static int device_resume(struct device *
> > > TRACE_DEVICE(dev);
> > > TRACE_RESUME(0);
> > >
> > > - if (dev->power.syscore)
> > > + if (dev->power.syscore || dev->power.direct_complete)
> > > goto Complete;
> > >
> > > dpm_wait(dev->parent, async);
> > > @@ -1007,7 +1007,7 @@ static int __device_suspend_noirq(struct
> > > goto Complete;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (dev->power.syscore)
> > > + if (dev->power.syscore || dev->power.direct_complete)
> > > goto Complete;
> > >
> > > dpm_wait_for_children(dev, async);
> > > @@ -1146,7 +1146,7 @@ static int __device_suspend_late(struct
> > > goto Complete;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (dev->power.syscore)
> > > + if (dev->power.syscore || dev->power.direct_complete)
> > > goto Complete;
> > >
> > > dpm_wait_for_children(dev, async);
> > > @@ -1312,7 +1312,7 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct devic
> > >
> > > dpm_wait_for_children(dev, async);
> > >
> > > - if (async_error || dev->power.syscore)
> > > + if (async_error || dev->power.syscore ||
> > > dev->power.direct_complete) goto Complete;
> > >
> > > dpm_watchdog_set(&wd, dev);
> > > @@ -1365,10 +1365,19 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct devic
> > >
> > > End:
> > > if (!error) {
> > > + struct device *parent = dev->parent;
> > > +
> > > dev->power.is_suspended = true;
> > > - if (dev->power.wakeup_path
> > > - && dev->parent
> > > && !dev->parent->power.ignore_children)
> > > - dev->parent->power.wakeup_path = true;
> > > + if (parent) {
> > > + spin_lock_irq(&parent->power.lock);
> > > +
> > > + dev->parent->power.direct_complete =
> > > false;
> > should we respect ignore_children flag here? not all parent devices
> > create children with proper .prepare() function. this allows parents
> > override children.
> > I am looking at USB, a USB device could have logical children such
> > as ep_xx, they don't go through the same subsystem .prepare().
>
> Well, I'm not sure about that. Let me consider that for a while.
OK. let me be more clear about the situation i see in USB. Correct me
if I am wrong, a USB device will always has at least one endpoint/ep_00
as a kid for control pipe, it is a logical device. So when
device_prepare() is called, its call back is NULL which
makes .direct_complete = 0. Since children device suspend is called
before parents, the parents .direct_complete flag will always get
cleared.

What i am trying to achieve here is to see if we avoid resuming
built-in (hardwired connect_type) non-hub USB devices based on this new
patchset. E.g. we don't want to resume/suspend USB camera every time in
system suspend/resume cycle if they are already rpm suspended. We can
save ~100ms resume time for the devices we have tested.

>
> Alan, what do you think?
>
> >
> > > + if (dev->power.wakeup_path
> > > +
> > > && !dev->parent->power.ignore_children)
> > > + dev->parent->power.wakeup_path =
> > > true; +
> > > + spin_unlock_irq(&parent->power.lock);
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > device_unlock(dev);
> > > @@ -1470,7 +1479,7 @@ static int device_prepare(struct device
> > > {
> > > int (*callback)(struct device *) = NULL;
> > > char *info = NULL;
> > > - int error = 0;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > >
> > > if (dev->power.syscore)
> > > return 0;
> > > @@ -1518,17 +1527,19 @@ static int device_prepare(struct device
> > > callback = dev->driver->pm->prepare;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (callback) {
> > > - error = callback(dev);
> > > - suspend_report_result(callback, error);
> > > - }
> > > + if (callback)
> > > + ret = callback(dev);
> > >
> > > device_unlock(dev);
> > >
> > > - if (error)
> > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > + suspend_report_result(callback, ret);
> > > pm_runtime_put(dev);
> > > -
> > > - return error;
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > > + dev->power.direct_complete = ret > 0 && state.event ==
> > > PM_EVENT_SUSPEND
> > > + &&
> > > pm_runtime_suspended(dev);
> > > + return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /**
> > >
> > > --
>
> Rafael
>

[Jacob Pan]