Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANA+-vCThdRivg7nrMK5QoFu8SGUzEVSvSyp0H2CPyy9==Tqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANA+-vARQ9Ao=W1oEArrAQ0sqh757orq=-=kytdVPhstm-3E9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190618182502.GC203031@google.com> <4587569.x9DSL43cXO@kreacher>
 <CANA+-vCMK6u1n9gXf2+v5dFn_tGfr1PT8d7W4d2BCzw+B-HvYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJWu+oo7kwmEyMXQN0yfswV2=J-Fa9QybhAUx-SOGG_ipsBErQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0gvzCx-7qS9qkxB=sGKjQJKMR7yCc21f=_vqrbZxMSWNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANA+-vCBW=P=dpJGfcKTt7SoNKzWcpP5pwZHSDMU6MkwBKoC9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190624073659.GA13957@kroah.com> <CAJWu+orGgYwnC+ya13+KtdNrH7ZjvmKL8625m=msVZd0==dq9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0jeYRx=9stkGbJZgvyQz=Wp2CBkyTwOkJ2Y61AEE6sMdg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0jeYRx=9stkGbJZgvyQz=Wp2CBkyTwOkJ2Y61AEE6sMdg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Tri Vo <trong@android.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:14:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CANA+-vCCA2of1jkoijAy_PE+jJS7+smBcSLGRrKP+2xUmc7Nmg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Alternatives to /sys/kernel/debug/wakeup_sources
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Sandeep Patil <sspatil@android.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@google.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@android.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:27 PM Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:37 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 06:48:43PM -0700, Tri Vo wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:35 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:52 AM Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:15 PM Tri Vo <trong@android.com> wrote:
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Android userspace reading wakeup_sources is not ideal because:
> > > > > > > > > > > - Debugfs API is not stable, i.e. Android tools built on top of it are
> > > > > > > > > > > not guaranteed to be backward/forward compatible.
> > > > > > > > > > > - This file requires debugfs to be mounted, which itself is
> > > > > > > > > > > undesirable for security reasons.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > To address these problems, we want to contribute a way to expose these
> > > > > > > > > > > statistics that doesn't depend on debugfs.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Some initial thoughts/questions: Should we expose the stats in sysfs?
> > > > > > > > > > > Or maybe implement eBPF-based solution? What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We are going through Android's out-of-tree kernel dependencies along with
> > > > > > > > > userspace APIs that are not necessarily considered "stable and forever
> > > > > > > > > supported" upstream. The debugfs dependencies showed up on our radar as a
> > > > > > > > > result and so we are wondering if we should worry about changes in debugfs
> > > > > > > > > interface and hence the question(s) below.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, can we rely on /d/wakeup_sources to be considered a userspace API and
> > > > > > > > > hence maintained stable as we do for other /proc and /sys entries?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If yes, then we will go ahead and add tests for this in LTP or
> > > > > > > > > somewhere else suitable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, debugfs is not ABI.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If no, then we would love to hear suggestions for any changes that need to be
> > > > > > > > > made or we simply just move the debugfs entry into somewhere like
> > > > > > > > > /sys/power/ ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, moving that entire file from debugfs into sysfs is not an option either.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The statistics for the wakeup sources associated with devices are already there
> > > > > > > > under /sys/devices/.../power/ , but I guess you want all wakeup sources?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That would require adding a kobject to struct wakeup_source and exposing
> > > > > > > > all of the statistics as separate attributes under it.  In which case it would be
> > > > > > > > good to replace the existing wakeup statistics under /sys/devices/.../power/
> > > > > > > > with symbolic links to the attributes under the wakeup_source kobject.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your input, Rafael! Your suggestion makes sense. I'll work
> > > > > > > on a patch for this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does that entail making each wake up source, a new sysfs node under a
> > > > > > particular device, and then adding stats under that new node?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not under a device, because there are wakeup source objects without
> > > > > associated devices.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is conceivable to have a "wakeup_sources" directory under
> > > > > /sys/power/ and sysfs nodes for all wakeup sources in there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, instead of exposing wakeup statistics directly under
> > > > > /sys/devices/.../power/, there can be symbolic links from there to the
> > > > > new wakeup source nodes under "wakeup_sources" (so as to avoid
> > > > > exposing the same data in two different places in sysfs, which may be
> > > > > confusing).
> > > >
> > > > This may be a dumb question. Is it appropriate to make symbolic links
> > > > in sysfs from one attribute to another attribute? For example,
> > > > /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup_count ->
> > > > /sys/power/wakeup_sources/.../wakeup_count.
> > >
> > > Why? would you want that?
> >
> > This sounds like what Rafael suggested (quoted above), right?
>
> I did, basically to avoid exposing the same information in two places
> via different code paths.
>
> I tend to forget about this limitation, sorry for the confusion.
>
> That's not a big deal, though, the attributes under
> /sys/devices/.../power/ just need to stay the way they are (for
> backwards compatibility).

Thanks for the clarification, Rafael!