Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

Arve Hjønnevåg
2009-03-03T23:38:16Z

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>> > On Sunday 01 March 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday 28 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> >> Can you summarize what the problems with my current api are? I get the
>> >> >> impression that you think the overhead of using a list is too high,
>> >> >> and that timeout support should be removed because you think all
>> >> >> drivers that use it are broken.
>> >> >
>> >> > In no particular order:
>> >> > 1. One user space process can create an unlimited number of wakelocks.  This
>> >> >   shouldn't be possible.  Moreover, it is not even necessary for any process
>> >> >   to have more than one wakelock held at any time.
>> >>
>> >> This has been addressed. A user space process cannot create more
>> >> wakelocks than it has filedescriptors.
>> >>
>> >> > 2. Timeouts are wrong, because they don't really _solve_ any problem.  They are
>> >> >   useful for working around the fact that you can't or you don't want to
>> >> >   modify every piece of code that in principle should take a wakelock and
>> >> >   that's it.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, timeouts are sometimes wrong, but they are not always wrong. I
>> >> gave two examples where the use of timeouts was not incorrect.
>> >
>> > There still is a problem that the same operation can take time X on one
>> > platform and time Y on another, so how are you going to determine the timeouts
>> > that will be suitable for all platforms?
>>
>> This only applies to the timeouts that fall into the wrong category.
>> The timeout used when a driver returns -EBUSY is arbitrary, but any
>> value is technically correct. The one second timeout in the alarm
>> driver is not platform specific. It is one second because the
>> resolution of the rtc api is only one second.
>>
>> For the timeouts that do fall into the wrong category (use a timeout
>> when passing data to a unmodified subsystem), the drivers are mostly
>> (if not all) platform specific.
>
> What drivers are they?

Serial driver used for bluetooth, wifi driver and battery driver for
usb. The msm smd code also need a wakelock with a timeout before
passing data to the tty and network layers, but I did not find this.

>> >> >  However,  entire concept of having one code path acting on
>> >> >   behalf of another one on a hunch that it might be doing something making
>> >> >   suspend undesirable is conceptually broken IMO.
>> >>
>> >> OK. Do you have an alternative?
>> >
>> > Well, IMO every code path doing something that makes automatic suspend
>> > undesirable should use a suspend blocker of some sort.  I'm afraid any other
>> > approach will be unreliable and racy.
>>
>> I agree with this,
>
> Good.
>
>> but I cannot change every code path at once.
>
> That need not happen at once (eg. in one patch or something).  Once we've
> introduced the basics, the changes can be made gradually wherever necessary,
> step by step.

If you are OK with merging an unfinished system then this may work.

>> I also don't know if every code path can be easily fixed. Using a timeout in
>> this case is a compromise. It is not as good as protecting every code
>> path, but it is much better than doing nothing. The race condition you
>> have when preventing suspend with a timeout is the same as every code
>> using a timeout. If the system is busy it can fail. The race condition
>> that you have with no protection happens with any load. If the system
>> decides to go to sleep at the same time as a wakeup event occur, the
>> system will sleep.
>
> Well, if you have strictly limited time (eg. you want to ship a product at
> specific date), you have to go for compromises like this, but we're not in a
> hurry (or are we for some unspecified reason?).  There's no deadline etc., so
> we can afford to do it right from the start (which BTW is likely to save us
> time in future).
>
> So, I'd suggest to just separate the timeouted suspend blockers from the
> basic code and introduce the latter first.

How do you want to handle drivers that return -EBUSY from suspend. The
basic code uses a wakelock with a timeout to handle this now. Without
this we can either try suspend again immediately, or activate a
suspend blocker and use a timer to release it.

> IOW, let's first try to merge things that everybody is comfortable with and
> postpone the merging of the rest.  I don't think we're going to lose
> anything by doing it this way.

I think we do loose some flexibility by leaving out timeout support,
but I'll try to separate it from the first patch.

--
Arve Hjønnevåg