From: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@oss.qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PM: runtime: Update last_busy before calling rpm_suspend() in rpm_idle()
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2026 16:59:25 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aveybY5Z9OWQYkRS@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4789427.LvFx2qVVIh@rafael.j.wysocki>
On Fri, Nov 13, 2026 at 02:27:23PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> When rpm_idle() is about to call rpm_suspend(), there are no reasons
> preventing the device from being suspended, but if the device uses an
> autosuspend delay, it needs to be taken into account.
>
> For this purpose, rpm_idle() adds RPM_AUTO to the flags passed to
> rpm_suspend(), but doing that alone is insufficient because the point
> in time from which the autosuspend delay is counted may be too early.
>
> For example, if the device has children (or consumers) and the last
> of them goes into runtime suspend, the parent may now become eligible
> for suspending, but it may not be worthwhile for it to suspend until
> a certain time later.
>
> Quoting Alan Stern [1]:
>
> Let's say the last remaining active child goes into runtime suspend at
> time T. Let's also say that the parent expects none of the children
> will need to resume until time T + D. Is D sufficiently large to make
> it worthwhile for the parent to suspend and then resume? If not, the
> parent should remain active. If yes, the parent should autosuspend --
> and the length of time the parent should wait before autosuspending is
> on the order of the value of D (let's call it D*) that corresponds to
> this crossover point. Thus the parent's autosuspend delay should be
> set to D*, or something close to it, in order to achieve both
> objectives.
>
> Moreover, if the parent's autosuspend delay is set to D*, it should be
> counted from time T at which the last child has suspended, but that does
> not happen because the parent's last_busy timestamp is not updated at
> time T. That leads to undesirable parent suspends occurring between
> child suspend and resume [2].
>
> To address this issue, make rpm_idle() update the last_busy timestamp
> of the device when it is about to call rpm_suspend() which most often
> is right after the device's last child (or consumer) has gone into
> runtime suspend.
Is it worthwhile to note (or at least hint at) how many other things
change along with this? e.g., how pm_runtime_allow() (and therefore
auto > control/power), all non-autosuspend pm_runtime_put() variants,
etc, also extend the autosuspend timer? I think we agreed these are
acceptable effects, and likely even desireable, but I'd say these are
fairly major changes.
In any case, the change looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
I meant to make time to test this out a bit more, but ran out; maybe
next week.
Thanks,
Brian
> Updating the last_busy timestamp when rpm_idle() returns an error
> without calling rpm_suspend() is not useful because the device is then
> going to remain active for an unknown amount of time and its autosuspend
> delay needs to take effect later.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/fc43eb13-816b-4cd0-9711-848fdab605ef@rowland.harvard.edu/ [1]
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/CAJZ5v0hKpjMsGQm8Cpa89x5wkNxqkggDNbp+eQ0S-E52DETWjQ@mail.gmail.com/ [2]
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> @@ -560,7 +560,11 @@ static int rpm_idle(struct device *dev,
>
> out:
> trace_rpm_return_int(dev, _THIS_IP_, retval);
> - return retval ? retval : rpm_suspend(dev, rpmflags | RPM_AUTO);
> + if (retval)
> + return retval;
> +
> + pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dev);
> + return rpm_suspend(dev, rpmflags | RPM_AUTO);
> }
>
> /**
>
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-14 0:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-13 13:27 [PATCH v1] PM: runtime: Update last_busy before calling rpm_suspend() in rpm_idle() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-11-14 0:59 ` Brian Norris [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aveybY5Z9OWQYkRS@google.com \
--to=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=ulf.hansson@oss.qualcomm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox