|From:||James Bottomley <James.Bottomley-AT-suse.de>|
|To:||Matthew Garrett <mjg59-AT-srcf.ucam.org>|
|Subject:||Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)|
|Date:||Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:01:25 -0500|
|Cc:||Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org>, Arve HjÃ¸nnevÃ¥g <arve-AT-android.com>, tytso-AT-mit.edu, LKML <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, Florian Mickler <florian-AT-mickler.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm-AT-lists.linux-foundation.org>, Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap-AT-vger.kernel.org>, felipe.balbi-AT-nokia.com, Alan Cox <alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>|
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 14:51 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:21:09PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > You're the one mentioning x86, not me. I already explained that some > > MSM hardware (the G1 for example) has lower power consumption in S3 > > (which I'm using as an ACPI shorthand for suspend to ram) than any > > suspend from idle C state. The fact that current x86 hardware has the > > same problem may be true, but it's not entirely relevant. > > As long as you can set a wakeup timer, an S state is just a C state with > side effects. The significant one is that entering an S state stops the > process scheduler and any in-kernel timers. I don't think Google care at > all about whether suspend is entered through an explicit transition or > something hooked into cpuidle - the relevant issue is that they want to > be able to express a set of constraints that lets them control whether > or not the scheduler keeps on scheduling, and which doesn't let them > lose wakeup events in the process. Exactly, so my understanding of where we currently are is: 1. pm_qos will be updated to be able to express the android suspend blockers as interactivity constraints (exact name TBD, but probably /dev/cpu_interactivity) 2. pm_qos will be updated to be callable from atomic context 3. pm_qos will be updated to export statistics initially closely matching what suspend blockers provides (simple update of the rw interface?) After this is done, the current android suspend block patch becomes a re-expression in kernel space in terms of pm_qos, with the current userspace wakelocks being adapted by the android framework into pm_qos requirements expressed to /dev/cpu_interactivity (or whatever name is chosen). Then opportunistic suspend is either a small add-on kernel patch they have in their tree to suspend when the interactivity constraint goes to NONE, or it could be done entirely by a userspace process. Long term this could migrate to the freezer and suspend from idle approach as the various problem timers get fixed. I think the big unresolved issue is the stats extension. For android, we need just a name written along with the value, so we have something to hang the stats off ... current pm_qos userspace users just write a value, so the name would be optional. From the kernel, we probably just need an additional API that takes a stats name or NULL if none (pm_qos_add_request_named()?). Then reading the stats could be done by implementing a fops read routine on the misc device. Did I miss anything? James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Copyright © 2010, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds