From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
The first (index 0) cell of the step_failures[] array in struct
suspend_stats introduced previously can be used as a counter of
successful suspend-resume cycles instead of the separate "success"
field in it, so do that.
While at it, change the type of the "fail" field in struct
suspend_stats to unsigned int, because it cannot be negative.
No intentional functional impact.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/suspend.h | 3 +--
kernel/power/main.c | 9 +++++----
kernel/power/suspend.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/include/linux/suspend.h
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/suspend.h
+++ linux-pm/include/linux/suspend.h
@@ -55,8 +55,7 @@ enum suspend_stat_step {
struct suspend_stats {
unsigned int step_failures[SUSPEND_NR_STEPS];
- int success;
- int fail;
+ unsigned int fail;
#define REC_FAILED_NUM 2
int last_failed_dev;
char failed_devs[REC_FAILED_NUM][40];
Index: linux-pm/kernel/power/main.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/kernel/power/main.c
+++ linux-pm/kernel/power/main.c
@@ -339,8 +339,7 @@ static ssize_t _name##_show(struct kobje
} \
static struct kobj_attribute _name = __ATTR_RO(_name)
-suspend_attr(success, "%d\n");
-suspend_attr(fail, "%d\n");
+suspend_attr(fail, "%u\n");
suspend_attr(last_hw_sleep, "%llu\n");
suspend_attr(total_hw_sleep, "%llu\n");
suspend_attr(max_hw_sleep, "%llu\n");
@@ -354,6 +353,7 @@ static ssize_t _name##_show(struct kobje
} \
static struct kobj_attribute _name = __ATTR_RO(_name)
+suspend_step_attr(success, SUSPEND_NONE);
suspend_step_attr(failed_freeze, SUSPEND_FREEZE);
suspend_step_attr(failed_prepare, SUSPEND_PREPARE);
suspend_step_attr(failed_suspend, SUSPEND_SUSPEND);
@@ -458,8 +458,9 @@ static int suspend_stats_show(struct seq
last_step = suspend_stats.last_failed_step + REC_FAILED_NUM - 1;
last_step %= REC_FAILED_NUM;
- seq_printf(s, "success: %d\nfail: %d\n",
- suspend_stats.success, suspend_stats.fail);
+ seq_printf(s, "success: %u\nfail: %u\n",
+ suspend_stats.step_failures[SUSPEND_NONE],
+ suspend_stats.fail);
for (step = SUSPEND_FREEZE; step < SUSPEND_NR_STEPS; step++)
seq_printf(s, "failed_%s: %u\n", suspend_step_names[step],
Index: linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/kernel/power/suspend.c
+++ linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
@@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ int pm_suspend(suspend_state_t state)
suspend_stats.fail++;
dpm_save_failed_errno(error);
} else {
- suspend_stats.success++;
+ suspend_stats.step_failures[SUSPEND_NONE]++;
}
pr_info("suspend exit\n");
return error;
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:29:11PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
>
> The first (index 0) cell of the step_failures[] array in struct
> suspend_stats introduced previously can be used as a counter of
> successful suspend-resume cycles instead of the separate "success"
> field in it, so do that.
>
> While at it, change the type of the "fail" field in struct
> suspend_stats to unsigned int, because it cannot be negative.
>
> No intentional functional impact.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/linux/suspend.h | 3 +--
> kernel/power/main.c | 9 +++++----
> kernel/power/suspend.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/include/linux/suspend.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/suspend.h
> +++ linux-pm/include/linux/suspend.h
> @@ -55,8 +55,7 @@ enum suspend_stat_step {
>
> struct suspend_stats {
> unsigned int step_failures[SUSPEND_NR_STEPS];
> - int success;
<snip>
> - suspend_stats.success, suspend_stats.fail);
> + seq_printf(s, "success: %u\nfail: %u\n",
> + suspend_stats.step_failures[SUSPEND_NONE],
> + suspend_stats.fail);
>
> for (step = SUSPEND_FREEZE; step < SUSPEND_NR_STEPS; step++)
> seq_printf(s, "failed_%s: %u\n", suspend_step_names[step],
> Index: linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/power/suspend.c
> +++ linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ int pm_suspend(suspend_state_t state)
> suspend_stats.fail++;
> dpm_save_failed_errno(error);
> } else {
> - suspend_stats.success++;
> + suspend_stats.step_failures[SUSPEND_NONE]++;
This looks confusing for me. I think would be better keep
success field and just remove SUSPEND_NONE from the
suspend_stat_step and suspend_stat_names. Actually do
not introduce it, SUSPEND_NONE does not seems to be necessary
(SUSPEND_FREEZE can be 0).
Regards
Stanislaw
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 8:52 AM Stanislaw Gruszka
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:29:11PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
> >
> > The first (index 0) cell of the step_failures[] array in struct
> > suspend_stats introduced previously can be used as a counter of
> > successful suspend-resume cycles instead of the separate "success"
> > field in it, so do that.
> >
> > While at it, change the type of the "fail" field in struct
> > suspend_stats to unsigned int, because it cannot be negative.
> >
> > No intentional functional impact.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > include/linux/suspend.h | 3 +--
> > kernel/power/main.c | 9 +++++----
> > kernel/power/suspend.c | 2 +-
> > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/include/linux/suspend.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/suspend.h
> > +++ linux-pm/include/linux/suspend.h
> > @@ -55,8 +55,7 @@ enum suspend_stat_step {
> >
> > struct suspend_stats {
> > unsigned int step_failures[SUSPEND_NR_STEPS];
> > - int success;
> <snip>
> > - suspend_stats.success, suspend_stats.fail);
> > + seq_printf(s, "success: %u\nfail: %u\n",
> > + suspend_stats.step_failures[SUSPEND_NONE],
> > + suspend_stats.fail);
> >
> > for (step = SUSPEND_FREEZE; step < SUSPEND_NR_STEPS; step++)
> > seq_printf(s, "failed_%s: %u\n", suspend_step_names[step],
> > Index: linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > +++ linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ int pm_suspend(suspend_state_t state)
> > suspend_stats.fail++;
> > dpm_save_failed_errno(error);
> > } else {
> > - suspend_stats.success++;
> > + suspend_stats.step_failures[SUSPEND_NONE]++;
>
> This looks confusing for me. I think would be better keep
> success field and just remove SUSPEND_NONE from the
> suspend_stat_step and suspend_stat_names. Actually do
> not introduce it, SUSPEND_NONE does not seems to be necessary
> (SUSPEND_FREEZE can be 0).
OK
I'll need to rearrange the series for that somewhat except for the
first two patches.
I guess it's OK to retain the R-by tags?
Thanks for all of the reviews!
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 04:11:08PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 8:52 AM Stanislaw Gruszka
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:29:11PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > The first (index 0) cell of the step_failures[] array in struct
> > > suspend_stats introduced previously can be used as a counter of
> > > successful suspend-resume cycles instead of the separate "success"
> > > field in it, so do that.
> > >
> > > While at it, change the type of the "fail" field in struct
> > > suspend_stats to unsigned int, because it cannot be negative.
> > >
> > > No intentional functional impact.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/suspend.h | 3 +--
> > > kernel/power/main.c | 9 +++++----
> > > kernel/power/suspend.c | 2 +-
> > > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-pm/include/linux/suspend.h
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/suspend.h
> > > +++ linux-pm/include/linux/suspend.h
> > > @@ -55,8 +55,7 @@ enum suspend_stat_step {
> > >
> > > struct suspend_stats {
> > > unsigned int step_failures[SUSPEND_NR_STEPS];
> > > - int success;
> > <snip>
> > > - suspend_stats.success, suspend_stats.fail);
> > > + seq_printf(s, "success: %u\nfail: %u\n",
> > > + suspend_stats.step_failures[SUSPEND_NONE],
> > > + suspend_stats.fail);
> > >
> > > for (step = SUSPEND_FREEZE; step < SUSPEND_NR_STEPS; step++)
> > > seq_printf(s, "failed_%s: %u\n", suspend_step_names[step],
> > > Index: linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > > +++ linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > > @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ int pm_suspend(suspend_state_t state)
> > > suspend_stats.fail++;
> > > dpm_save_failed_errno(error);
> > > } else {
> > > - suspend_stats.success++;
> > > + suspend_stats.step_failures[SUSPEND_NONE]++;
> >
> > This looks confusing for me. I think would be better keep
> > success field and just remove SUSPEND_NONE from the
> > suspend_stat_step and suspend_stat_names. Actually do
> > not introduce it, SUSPEND_NONE does not seems to be necessary
> > (SUSPEND_FREEZE can be 0).
>
> OK
>
> I'll need to rearrange the series for that somewhat except for the
> first two patches.
I wouldn't mind to skip this change and just remove SUSPEND_NONE
in separate patch.
> I guess it's OK to retain the R-by tags?
Yes, is OK.
Regards
Stanislaw