Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:49:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / sleep: New flag to speed up suspend-resume of
 suspended devices
In-Reply-To: <1473124.o9vSBYk3be@vostro.rjw.lan>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1402261103190.1308-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > I admit, there most likely _are_ devices that would get into trouble if
> > the question ever did arise.
> 
> Well, I kind of put that to a test by posting these two patches:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3705261/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3705271/
> 
> We'll see if they lead to any regressions, but I'm going to work on top of
> them going forward anyway.

And here I had the impression that you wanted to avoid any regressions
from those patches...

> Actually, on top of the two patches mentioned above (and for devices
> without power.ignore_children set) the question reduces to whether or not
> (i) the device itself is runtime-suspended when its .suspend() callback is
> running and (ii) its power state is such that it can remain suspended.
> If both (i) and (ii) are met, the device may be left suspended safely,
> because if any of its children had depended on it, they would have resumed
> it already.

Does this mean you changed your mind?  In an earlier email, you wrote:

> >     (b) It's okay for the device's parent to be in runtime suspend
> >       when the device's ->suspend callbacks are invoked.
> > 
> > I included this just to be thorough.  In fact, I expect (b) to be true 
> > for pretty much every device already.
> 
> I don't quite understand this.  What if the parent is a bridge and the
> child's ->suspend tries to access the child's registers?  That surely won't
> work if the parent is in a low-power state at that point.

So the answer is that if the bridge is suspended, then the child must
be suspended too and hence the child's ->suspend should _expect_
problems if it tries to access the child's registers.

(By the way, during this discussion I have had a tendency to mix up two 
related concepts:

	The device's ->suspend routine expects the _parent_ not to be
	suspended;

	The device's ->suspend routine expects the _device_ not to be
	suspended.

Obviously the second implies the first.  But once the second has been
fixed, the first should never cause any trouble.)

> Still, I think that something like power.fast_suspend is needed to indicate
> that .suspend_late(), .suspend_noirq(), .resume_noirq() and .resume_early()
> should be skipped for it (in my opinion the core may very well skip them then)
> and so that .resume() knows how to handle the device.

I don't follow.  Why would you skip these routines without also
skipping .suspend and .resume?

> I generally agree that whether or not a device may be left suspended during and
> after system resume and whether or not a device may be left suspended during
> system suspend are two different questions.  However, when it *is* left
> suspended during system suspend, then that implies certain way of handling it
> during the subsequent system resume.  After which it still may not be left
> suspended.

I would prefer to say: "However, when the system suspend callbacks
_are_ skipped, that implies the corresponding system resume callbacks
must also be skipped and hence the device must remain suspended".  Is
this consistent with what you meant?

As I see it, the fast_suspend implementation could lead to regressions
in two ways:

	The child's ->suspend doesn't expect the parent to be 
	suspended.

	The child's ->resume doesn't expect the parent to be
	suspended.

We agree now that the first won't be a problem, because it would imply
the child is suspended too.

However, the second may indeed be a problem.  I don't know how you
intend to handle it.  Apply the patch, like you did for ACPI and PCI
above, and then see what happens?

A simple solution is to use fast_suspend only for devices that have no
children.  But that would not be optimal.

Another possibility is always to call pm_runtime_resume(dev->parent)
before invoking dev's ->resume callback.  But that might not solve the
entire problem (it wouldn't help dev's ->resume_early callback, for
instance) and it also might be sub-optimal.

Alan Stern

--
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/