From: Nitish Ambastha <nits.ambastha@gmail.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Nitish Ambastha <nitish.a@samsung.com>,
pavel@ucw.cz, len.brown@intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpgs@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] kernel/power/autosleep.c: check for pm_suspend() return before queueing suspend again
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2015 23:36:52 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHWDpXhP=hgU8cNczzrvbFf0MW8DsGzg+GVdZ8K-hRJ5P+niaQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3120244.uQuxSPo26i@vostro.rjw.lan>
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 01, 2015 12:52:43 AM Nitish Ambastha wrote:
> > Hi Rafael
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 29, 2015 09:56:18 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 12:24:14 AM Nitish Ambastha wrote:
> > >> > Prevent tight loop for suspend-resume when some
> > >> > devices failed to suspend
> > >> > If some devices failed to suspend, we monitor this
> > >> > error in try_to_suspend(). pm_suspend() is already
> > >> > an 'int' returning function, how about checking return
> > >> > from pm_suspend() before queueing suspend again?
> > >> >
> > >> > For devices which do not register for pending events,
> > >> > this will prevent tight loop for suspend-resume in
> > >> > suspend abort scenarios due to device suspend failures
> > >
> > > Having said the below I'm not sure why the current code doesn't cover this
> > > for you?
> > >
> > > That would be the final_count == initial_count case, no?
> > >
> > Agree, this should cover most of the cases, however there are some
> > cases where final_count may not match initial_count here
> >
> > A couple of such scenario I came across is
> > 1) when tasks are restarted again due to suspend failure, sometimes
> > battery kernel thread acquires lock for battery monitoring resulting
> > in either pm_get_wakeup_count() returning false or increment in
> > final_count from initial_count
>
> Locks should not have any effect on the return value of pm_get_wakeup_count()
> and if false is returned by it, a wakeup event was being processed when it
> was called.
>
'lock' was not a correct term used, sorry about it.
By 'lock', I actually meant battery monitoring acquiring 'wake lock' here
i.e pm_wakeup_event/pm_stay_awake().
when battery kernel thread calls pm_stay_awake() or pm_wakeup_event()
momentarily and then pm_relax(), after being restarted on suspend failure,
this affects the wakeup event count
> In turn, if pm_get_wakeup_count() returns false or final_count != initial_count,
> this means that *somebody* called pm_wakeup_event() or equivalent in the meantime
> and there *was* a valid wakeup event (regardless of or in addition to the driver
> error).
>
ok, as I understand, if some driver failed to suspend, and during resume
if *somebody* called pm_stay_awake() or pm_wakeup_event() meantime,
and then pm_relax(), final_count and initial_count will not be
same in try_to_suspend(), and it will be considered as a *valid wakeup*
event, though the actual reason of resume was suspend failure.
In this condition, it will again try to queue suspend
Will it be a reasonable idea to wait in this case, before queueing
suspend as some drivers failed to suspend in the current attempt?
> > 2) In some platforms, power transitions are carried from User space
> > (power manager), these power-manager tries to hold some wake lock
> > after being restarted on resume
>
> And what exactly is the failing scenario in that case?
>
>
> --
> I speak only for myself.
> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-05 9:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-29 12:34 [PATCH 1/1] kernel/power/autosleep.c: check for pm_suspend() return before queueing suspend again Nitish Ambastha
2015-06-29 9:21 ` Pavel Machek
2015-06-29 18:54 ` [PATCHv2 " Nitish Ambastha
2015-06-29 19:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-06-29 20:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-06-30 19:22 ` Nitish Ambastha
2015-06-30 20:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-04 18:06 ` Nitish Ambastha [this message]
2015-07-13 20:08 ` [PATCHv3 " Nitish Ambastha
2015-07-13 20:24 ` Nitish Ambastha
2015-07-13 23:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-14 4:04 ` Nitish Ambastha
2015-07-15 22:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-22 20:11 ` Nitish Ambastha
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAHWDpXhP=hgU8cNczzrvbFf0MW8DsGzg+GVdZ8K-hRJ5P+niaQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=nits.ambastha@gmail.com \
--cc=cpgs@samsung.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nitish.a@samsung.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.