Re: A desktop environment[1] kernel wishlist

Chirantan Ekbote
2015-05-05T17:58:39Z

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2015, Chirantan Ekbote wrote:
>
>> Ok so now I can talk about how lucid sleep fits into all of this. The
>> power manager only considers a suspend attempt successful if the write
>> to /sys/power/state was successful. If the suspend was successful,
>> the power manager then reads another sysfs file
>> (/sys/power/wakeup_type in our kernel) to determine if the wakeup
>> event was user-triggered. If the event was user-triggered it sends
>> out a DBus signal announcing the end of the suspend, Chrome thaws its
>> renderer processes, the full UI comes back up, and the user can start
>> working. If the event was _not_ user-triggred (if it was the RTC or
>> NIC), the power manager sends out a different DBus signal announcing
>> that the system is in lucid sleep and will re-suspend soon. It will
>> then wait for all registered applications to report readiness to
>> suspend or for the max timeout to expire.
>>
>> If it so happens that a user interacts with the system while it is in
>> this state, the power manager detects it via the user activity message
>> that Chrome sends. This could be real (keyboard, trackpad) or
>> simulated (lid, power button). Either way, the power manager responds
>> the same way: it announces the end of the suspend, Chrome thaws its
>> renderers, the full UI comes back up, and the user starts working. If
>> there is no user activity and all applications report ready, the power
>> manager gets ready to suspend the system again. Since the NIC is now
>> a wakeup source, the power manager doesn't read the wakeup_count until
>> after all applications have reported ready because accessing the
>> network could increment the wakeup_count and cause false positives.
>
> This gives only an implicit description of the difference between
> "lucid sleep" and normal resume. I gather that "lucid sleep" means you
> avoid reactivating some parts of the hardware (in particular the parts
> used by the renderers), and perhaps also you shorten the inactivity
> delay before the next suspend.
>
> Is that right? The main point of "lucid sleep" is to allow the system
> to do a partial resume, in which some of the most power-hungry parts
> remain suspended?
>

Yes, that is correct.

> If that's true then some of the recent work on "direct-complete" may be
> sufficient to do what you want. See commit f71495f3f0c5 (PM / sleep:
> Update device PM documentation to cover direct_complete) and the
> preceding commits. The idea is that under some circumstances, devices
> that were in runtime-suspend before a system sleep can remain in
> runtime-suspend when the system wakes up.
>
> If you can force the rendering hardware to go into runtime-suspend when
> starting a system suspend, it can remain powered down when the system
> wakes up. Then if it isn't needed for anything (because you suspend
> the system again before doing any UI activity), it can remain powered
> down the entire time. No need for a separate "lucid sleep" state.
>

This is our plan for the next version (see my email earlier in this
thread). Keeping a hybrid power state with hacks in the drivers isn't
really maintainable, scalable, or upstream-able and has caused us some
headaches already. Unfortunately we were working with the 3.14 kernel
at the time, which didn't have the framework necessary to do anything
else. The new version of lucid sleep will have the power manager
runtime suspend power-hungry devices before a suspend so that they
remain powered off at resume time. The power manager can then decide
to resume those devices based on whether the wakeup event was
user-triggered.

Being able to determine the wakeup type from userspace is the only
functionality we need from the kernel that doesn't already exist in
mainline.

> Alan Stern
>