> On Dec 19, 2009, at 3:10 PM, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday 19 December 2009, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:33 PM, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday 19 December 2009, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:43:29PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday 16 December 2009, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 03:11:05AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Give a real example that matters.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'll try. Let -> denote child-parent relationships and assume
> >>>>>>>>> dpm_list looks
> >>>>>>>>> like this:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I mean something real - something like
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - if you run on a non-PC with two USB buses behind non-PCI
> >>>>>>>> controllers.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - device xyz.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If this applies to _resume_ only, then I agree, but the
> >>>>>>>>> Arjan's data clearly
> >>>>>>>>> show that serio devices take much more time to suspend than
> >>>>>>>>> USB.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I mean in general - something where you actually have hard data
> >>>>>>>> that some
> >>>>>>>> device really needs anythign more than my one-liner, and really
> >>>>>>>> _needs_
> >>>>>>>> some complex infrastructure.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not "let's imagine a case like xyz".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As I said I would, I made some measurements.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I measured the total time of suspending and resuming devices as
> >>>>>>> shown by the
> >>>>>>> code added by this patch:
> >>>>>>>
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/rafael/suspend-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=...
> >>>>>>> on two boxes, HP nx6325 and MSI Wind U100 (hardware-wise they
> >>>>>>> are quite
> >>>>>>> different and the HP was running 64-bit kernel and user space).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I took four cases into consideration:
> >>>>>>> (1) synchronous suspend and resume (/sys/power/pm_async = 0)
> >>>>>>> (2) asynchronous suspend and resume as introduced by the async
> >>>>>>> branch at:
> >>>>>>>
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/rafael/suspend-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/hea...
> >>>>>>> (3) asynchronous suspend and resume like in (2), but with your
> >>>>>>> one-liner setting
> >>>>>>> the power.async_suspend flag for PCI bridges on top
> >>>>>>> (4) asynchronous suspend and resume like in (2), but with an
> >>>>>>> extra patch that
> >>>>>>> is appended on top
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For those tests I set power.async_suspend for all USB devices,
> >>>>>>> all serio input
> >>>>>>> devices, the ACPI battery and the USB PCI controllers (to see
> >>>>>>> the impact of the
> >>>>>>> one-liner, if any).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I carried out 5 consecutive suspend-resume cycles (started from
> >>>>>>> under X) on
> >>>>>>> each box in each case, and the raw data are here (all times in
> >>>>>>> milliseconds):
> >>>>>>>
http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/data/async-suspend.pdf
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The summarized data are below (the "big" numbers are averages
> >>>>>>> and the +/-
> >>>>>>> numbers are standard deviations, all in milliseconds):
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> HP nx6325 MSI Wind U100
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> sync suspend 1482 (+/- 40) 1180 (+/- 24)
> >>>>>>> sync resume 2955 (+/- 2) 3597 (+/- 25)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> async suspend 1553 (+/- 49) 1177 (+/- 32)
> >>>>>>> async resume 2692 (+/- 326) 3556 (+/- 33)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> async+one-liner suspend 1600 (+/- 39) 1212 (+/- 41)
> >>>>>>> async+one-liner resume 2692 (+/- 324) 3579 (+/- 24)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> async+extra suspend 1496 (+/- 37) 1217 (+/- 38)
> >>>>>>> async+extra resume 1859 (+/- 114) 1923 (+/- 35)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, in my opinion, with the above set of "async" devices, it
> >>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>> make sense to do async suspend at all, because the sync suspend
> >>>>>>> is actually
> >>>>>>> the fastest on both machines.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think the async suspend is not asynchronous enough then - what
> >>>>>> kind of
> >>>>>> time do you get if you simply comment out call to psmouse_reset()
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> drivers/input/mouse/psmouse-base.c:psmouse_cleanup()? (Just for
> >>>>>> testing
> >>>>>> purposes only, I don't think we want to do that by default.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The problem apparently is that the i8042 suspend/resume is
> >>>>> synchronous.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you think it's safe to mark it as asynchronous?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Umm.. there lie dragons. There is an implicit relationship between
> >>>> i8042
> >>>> and PNP/ACPI devices representing keyboard and mouse ports, and I
> >>>> am not
> >>>> sure how happy i8042 (and most importantly the BIOS) will be if
> >>>> they get
> >>>> shut down before i8042. Also there is EC which is in theory
> >>>> independent
> >>>> but in practice not so much.
> >>>
> >>> I see.
> >>>
> >>> Is this possible to identify ACPI devices that should wait for the
> >>> i8042
> >>> suspend and that should be waited for by it on resume?
> >>
> >> We could try to add some dependencies while discovering PNP to get
> >> KBC
> >> addresses in i8042 but we need tomake sure we do it even in presence
> >> of i8042.nopnp.
> >
> > Well, I guess this is the example of the off-tree dependencies that
> > actually
> > matter Linus wanted. :-)
> >
> > I guess there are quite a few devices that can depend on the i8042 in
> > principle, is this correct?
>
> The devices that depend on i8042 are serio ports that are it's
> children.
