Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752167Ab3FHKpd (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jun 2013 06:45:33 -0400 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:60004 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751967Ab3FHKpb (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jun 2013 06:45:31 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com Cc: Greg KH , shuox.liu@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, pavel@ucw.cz, len.brown@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Run callback of device_prepare/complete consistently Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:54:34 +0200 Message-ID: <1848832.IkLoHNGzvs@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.10.0-rc4+; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1370659038.4432.112.camel@ymzhang.sh.intel.com> References: <1370593232-3602-1-git-send-email-shuox.liu@intel.com> <2994160.MkjLhsn0bK@vostro.rjw.lan> <1370659038.4432.112.camel@ymzhang.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3591 Lines: 66 On Saturday, June 08, 2013 10:37:18 AM Yanmin Zhang wrote: > On Sat, 2013-06-08 at 03:52 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, June 08, 2013 09:36:03 AM Yanmin Zhang wrote: > > > On Sat, 2013-06-08 at 03:30 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 07, 2013 06:16:25 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 08:42:12AM +0800, Yanmin Zhang wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 12:36 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, June 07, 2013 04:20:30 PM shuox.liu@intel.com wrote: > > > > > > > > dpm_run_callback is used in other stages of power states changing. > > > > > > > > It provides debug info message and time measurement when call these > > > > > > > > callback. We also want to benefit ->prepare and ->complete. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [PATCH 1/2] PM: use dpm_run_callback in device_prepare > > > > > > > > [PATCH 2/2] PM: add dpm_run_callback_void and use it in device_complete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this an "Oh, why don't we do that?" series, or is it useful for anything > > > > > > > in practice? I'm asking, because we haven't added that stuff to start with > > > > > > > since we didn't see why it would be useful to anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And while patch [1/2] reduces the code size (by 1 line), so I can see some > > > > > > > (tiny) benefit from applying it, patch [2/2] adds more code and is there any > > > > > > > paractical reason? > > > > > > Sometimes, suspend-to-ram path spends too much time (either suspend slowly > > > > > > or wakeup slowly) and we need optimize it. > > > > > > With the 2 patches, we could collect initcall_debug printk info and manually > > > > > > check what prepare/complete callbacks consume too much time. > > > > > > > > > > But initcall information is for initialization stuff, not suspend/resume > > > > > things, right? Doesn't the existing tools for parsing this choke if it > > > > > sees the information at suspend/resume time? > > > > > > > > We've been using that for suspend/resume for quite some time too, but not > > > > for the prepare/complete phases (because we still believe that's not really > > > > useful for them). > > > > > > > > Well, I'll be handling patches changing code under drivers/base/power, > > > > I promise. :-) > > > > > > > > I've been doing that for quite a few years now ... > > > Yes, indeed. Power is one of the most important features on embedded devices. > > > Lots of smart phones don't really go through the full cycles of suspend-to-ram. > > > We are following the full steps of the suspend. > > > > But if you go through the code, you'll see that alomost no drivers actually > > implemet .prepare() and .complete(). Some subsystems do, but they really don't > > take too much time to execute. Which means that your patches with > > initcall_debug will add quite a pile of useless garbage to the kernel log > Does that mean we need add more log levels around such info instead of just having or > not having? Since we don't have any code in the tree that causes problems those patches are supposed to catch, I don't see why we need them in the tree. Would it be viable to keep them out of the tree for the time being and re-submit once there is real need? Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/