Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)

Dmitry Torokhov
2009-12-19T23:22:40Z

On Dec 19, 2009, at 3:10 PM, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:

> On Saturday 19 December 2009, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:33 PM, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday 19 December 2009, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:43:29PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday 16 December 2009, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 03:11:05AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Give a real example that matters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll try. Let -> denote child-parent relationships and assume
>>>>>>>>> dpm_list looks
>>>>>>>>> like this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I mean something real - something like
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - if you run on a non-PC with two USB buses behind non-PCI
>>>>>>>> controllers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - device xyz.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If this applies to _resume_ only, then I agree, but the
>>>>>>>>> Arjan's data clearly
>>>>>>>>> show that serio devices take much more time to suspend than
>>>>>>>>> USB.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I mean in general - something where you actually have hard data
>>>>>>>> that some
>>>>>>>> device really needs anythign more than my one-liner, and really
>>>>>>>> _needs_
>>>>>>>> some complex infrastructure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not "let's imagine a case like xyz".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I said I would, I made some measurements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I measured the total time of suspending and resuming devices as
>>>>>>> shown by the
>>>>>>> code added by this patch:
>>>>>>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/rafael/suspend-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=c1b8fc0a8bff7707c10f31f3d26bfa88e18ccd94;hp=087dbf5f079f1b55cbd3964c9ce71268473d5b67
>>>>>>> on two boxes, HP nx6325 and MSI Wind U100 (hardware-wise they
>>>>>>> are quite
>>>>>>> different and the HP was running 64-bit kernel and user space).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I took four cases into consideration:
>>>>>>> (1) synchronous suspend and resume (/sys/power/pm_async = 0)
>>>>>>> (2) asynchronous suspend and resume as introduced by the async
>>>>>>> branch at:
>>>>>>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/rafael/suspend-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/async
>>>>>>> (3) asynchronous suspend and resume like in (2), but with your
>>>>>>> one-liner setting
>>>>>>> the power.async_suspend flag for PCI bridges on top
>>>>>>> (4) asynchronous suspend and resume like in (2), but with an
>>>>>>> extra patch that
>>>>>>> is appended on top
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For those tests I set power.async_suspend for all USB devices,
>>>>>>> all serio input
>>>>>>> devices, the ACPI battery and the USB PCI controllers (to see
>>>>>>> the impact of the
>>>>>>> one-liner, if any).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I carried out 5 consecutive suspend-resume cycles (started from
>>>>>>> under X) on
>>>>>>> each box in each case, and the raw data are here (all times in
>>>>>>> milliseconds):
>>>>>>> http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/data/async-suspend.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The summarized data are below (the "big" numbers are averages
>>>>>>> and the +/-
>>>>>>> numbers are standard deviations, all in milliseconds):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HP nx6325 MSI Wind U100
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sync suspend 1482 (+/- 40) 1180 (+/- 24)
>>>>>>> sync resume 2955 (+/- 2) 3597 (+/- 25)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> async suspend 1553 (+/- 49) 1177 (+/- 32)
>>>>>>> async resume 2692 (+/- 326) 3556 (+/- 33)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> async+one-liner suspend 1600 (+/- 39) 1212 (+/- 41)
>>>>>>> async+one-liner resume 2692 (+/- 324) 3579 (+/- 24)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> async+extra suspend 1496 (+/- 37) 1217 (+/- 38)
>>>>>>> async+extra resume 1859 (+/- 114) 1923 (+/- 35)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, in my opinion, with the above set of "async" devices, it
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> make sense to do async suspend at all, because the sync suspend
>>>>>>> is actually
>>>>>>> the fastest on both machines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the async suspend is not asynchronous enough then - what
>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>> time do you get if you simply comment out call to psmouse_reset()
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> drivers/input/mouse/psmouse-base.c:psmouse_cleanup()? (Just for
>>>>>> testing
>>>>>> purposes only, I don't think we want to do that by default.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem apparently is that the i8042 suspend/resume is
>>>>> synchronous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think it's safe to mark it as asynchronous?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Umm.. there lie dragons. There is an implicit relationship between
>>>> i8042
>>>> and PNP/ACPI devices representing keyboard and mouse ports, and I
>>>> am not
>>>> sure how happy i8042 (and most importantly the BIOS) will be if
>>>> they get
>>>> shut down before i8042. Also there is EC which is in theory
>>>> independent
>>>> but in practice not so much.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>>
>>> Is this possible to identify ACPI devices that should wait for the
>>> i8042
>>> suspend and that should be waited for by it on resume?
>>
>> We could try to add some dependencies while discovering PNP to get
>> KBC
>> addresses in i8042 but we need tomake sure we do it even in presence
>> of i8042.nopnp.
>
> Well, I guess this is the example of the off-tree dependencies that
> actually
> matter Linus wanted. :-)
>
> I guess there are quite a few devices that can depend on the i8042 in
> principle, is this correct?

The devices that depend on i8042 are serio ports that are it's
children. I8042 itself may have indirect dependency on a couple of PNP
devices.

>
I hope this answers your question...

--
Dmitry