Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:41:12 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= <arve@android.com>
Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, pavel@ucw.cz, florian@mickler.org, rjw@sisk.pl,
        stern@rowland.harvard.edu, swetland@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
Message-ID: <20100803154112.GE2407@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20100731175841.GA9367@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <AANLkTi=hoGF7egpyB9sLKJoXv5aiGrxfa9_5iH-96SA=@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=hoGF7egpyB9sLKJoXv5aiGrxfa9_5iH-96SA=@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 8999
Lines: 181

On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 09:18:27PM -0700, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> ...

First, thank you very much for your review and feedback!

> > REQUIREMENTS
> >
> > o ? ? ? Reduce the system's power consumption in order to (1) extend
> > ? ? ? ?battery life and (2) preserve state until AC power can be obtained.
> >
> > o ? ? ? It is necessary to be able to use power-naive applications.
> > ? ? ? ?Many of these applications were designed for use in PC platforms
> > ? ? ? ?where power consumption has historically not been of great
> > ? ? ? ?concern, due to either (1) the availability of AC power or (2)
> > ? ? ? ?relatively undemanding laptop battery-lifetime expectations. ?The
> > ? ? ? ?system must be capable of running these power-naive applications
> > ? ? ? ?without requiring that these applications be modified, and must
> > ? ? ? ?be capable of reasonable power efficiency even when power-naive
> > ? ? ? ?applications are available.
> >
> > o ? ? ? If the display is powered off, there is no need to run any
> > ? ? ? ?application whose only effect is to update the display.
> >
> > ? ? ? ?Although one could simply block such an application when it next
> > ? ? ? ?tries to access the display, it appears that it is highly
> > ? ? ? ?desirable that the application also be prevented from
> > ? ? ? ?consuming power computing anything that will not be displayed.
> > ? ? ? ?Furthermore, whatever mechanism is used must operate on
> > ? ? ? ?power-naive applications that do not use blocking system calls.
> >
> > o ? ? ? In order to avoid overrunning hardware and/or kernel buffers,
> > ? ? ? ?input events must be delivered to the corresponding application
> > ? ? ? ?in a timely fashion. ?The application might or might not be
> > ? ? ? ?required to actually process the events in a timely fashion,
> > ? ? ? ?depending on the specific application.
> >
> > ? ? ? ?In particular, if user input that would prevent the system
> > ? ? ? ?from entering a low-power state is received while the system is
> > ? ? ? ?transitioning into a low-power state, the system must transition
> > ? ? ? ?back out of the low-power state so that it can hand the user
> > ? ? ? ?input off to the corresponding application.
> >
> > o ? ? ? If a power-aware application receives user input, then that
> > ? ? ? ?application must be given the opportunity to process that
> > ? ? ? ?input.
> >
> > o ? ? ? A power-aware application must be able to efficiently communicate
> > ? ? ? ?its needs to the system, so that such communication can be
> > ? ? ? ?performed on hot code paths. ?Communication via open() and
> > ? ? ? ?close() is considered too slow, but communication via ioctl()
> > ? ? ? ?is acceptable.
> 
> The problem with using open and close to prevent an allow suspend is
> not that it is too slow but that it interferes with collecting stats.
> The wakelock code has a sysfs interface that allow you to use a
> open/write/close sequence to block or unblock suspend. There is no
> limit to the amount of kernel memory that a process can consume with
> this interface, so the suspend blocker patchset uses a /dev interface
> with ioctls to block or unblock suspend and it destroys the kernel
> object when the file descriptor is closed.

Ah, I missed this point.  What I am doing to adjust is to strike the
above requirement, and to add verbiage to the "statistics" requirement
about using ioctl() to implement suspend-blocker operations, so that the
statistics can be tracked based on the device being open throughout the
application's lifetime.

> > o ? ? ? Power-naive applications must be prohibited from controlling
> > ? ? ? ?the system power state. ?One acceptable approach is through
> > ? ? ? ?use of group permissions on a special power-control device.
> >
> > o ? ? ? Statistics of the power-control actions taken by power-aware
> > ? ? ? ?applications must be provided, and must be keyed off of program
> > ? ? ? ?name.
> 
> We don't key the stats off the program name, but having useful
> statistics is critical too us. The current code in linux-next does not
> appear to allow this (I'm referring to pm_stay_awake here, etc not
> pm-qos.)

OK, maybe I was confused earlier.  So you do not track statistics via
the device being open throughout the application's lifetime?

I am not familiar with pm_stay_awake(), but will take a look at it.

> > o ? ? ? Power-aware applications can make use of power-naive infrastructure.
> > ? ? ? ?This means that a power-aware application must have some way,
> > ? ? ? ?whether explicit or implicit, to ensure that any power-naive
> > ? ? ? ?infrastructure is permitted to run when a power-aware application
> > ? ? ? ?needs it to run.
> >
> > o ? ? ? When a power-aware application is preventing the system from
> > ? ? ? ?shutting down, and is also waiting on a power-naive application,
> > ? ? ? ?the power-aware application must set a timeout to handle
> > ? ? ? ?the possibility that the power-naive application might halt
> > ? ? ? ?or otherwise fail. ?(Such timeouts are also used to limit the
> > ? ? ? ?number of kernel modifications required.)
> 
> wake-lock/suspend-blocker timeouts have nothing to do with the timeout
> used by applications when waiting for a response from a less trusted
> application.

OK, I moved this to a new "SUGGESTED USAGE" section and removed the
last (parenthesized) sentence.

> > o ? ? ? If no power-aware or power-optimized application are indicating
> > ? ? ? ?a need for the system to remain operating, the system is permitted
> > ? ? ? ?(even encouraged!) to suspend all execution, even if power-naive
> > ? ? ? ?applications are runnable. ?(This requirement did appear to be
> > ? ? ? ?somewhat controversial.)
> 
> I would say it should suspend even if power aware applications are
> runnable. Most applications do not exclusively perform critical work.

The point being that a power-aware application does not block suspend
-unless- it holds a suspend blocker, correct?

Or am I missing some other subtlety?

> > o ? ? ? Transition to low-power state must be efficient. ?In particular,
> > ? ? ? ?methods based on repeated attempts to suspend are considered to
> > ? ? ? ?be too inefficient to be useful.
> 
> It must be power-efficient. Repeated attempts to suspend will kill the
> idle battery life.

Good point!  I changed "Transition to low-power state must be efficient"
to instead read "Transition to low-power state must be power-efficient."

> > o ? ? ? Individual peripherals and CPUs must still use standard
> > ? ? ? ?power-conservation measures, for example, transitioning CPUs into
> > ? ? ? ?low-power states on idle and powering down peripheral devices
> > ? ? ? ?and hardware accelerators that have not been recently used.
> >
> > o ? ? ? The API that controls the system power state must be
> > ? ? ? ?accessible both from Android's Java replacement, from
> > ? ? ? ?userland C code, and from kernel C code (both process
> > ? ? ? ?level and irq code, but not NMI handlers).
> >
> > o ? ? ? Any initialization of the API that controls the system power
> > ? ? ? ?state must be unconditional, so as to be free from failure.
> > ? ? ? ?(I don't currently understand how this relates, probably due to
> > ? ? ? ?my current insufficient understanding of the proposed patch set.)
> 
> Unconditional initialization makes it easier to add suspend blockers
> to existing kernel code since you don't have to add new failure exit
> paths. It is not a strong requirement.

Ah, that makes more sense!  I moved this to a new "NICE-TO-HAVES"
section.  I also changed the last parenthesized sentence to read
"Such unconditional initialization reduces the intrusiveness of the
the Android patchset."  Does that work?

> > o ? ? ? The API that controls the system power state must operate
> > ? ? ? ?correctly on SMP systems of modest size. ?(My guess is that
> > ? ? ? ?"modest" means up to four CPUs, maybe up to eight CPUs.)
> >
> > o ? ? ? Any QoS-based solution must take display and user-input
> > ? ? ? ?state into account. ?In other words, the QoS must be
> > ? ? ? ?expressed as a function of the display and the user-input
> > ? ? ? ?states.
> >
> > o ? ? ? Transitioning to extremely low power states requires saving
> > ? ? ? ?and restoring DRAM and/or cache SRAM state, which in itself
> > ? ? ? ?consumes significant energy. ?The power savings must therefore
> > ? ? ? ?be balanced against the energy consumed in the state
> > ? ? ? ?transitions.
> >
> > o ? ? ? The current Android userspace API must be supported in order
> > ? ? ? ?to support existing device software.

Thank you again for looking this over and for your comments!!!

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/