This is RFC. It does not even work for me... it sleeps but it will not
wake up, because SATA wakeup code is missing. Code attached for illustration.
I wonder if this is the right approach? What is right interface to the
drivers?
Sleepy Linux
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright 2007 Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
GPLv2
Current Linux versions can enter suspend-to-RAM just fine, but only
can do it on explicit request. But suspend-to-RAM is important, eating
something like 10% of power needed for idle system. Starting suspend
manually is not too convinient; it is not an option on multiuser
machine, and even on single user machine, some things are not easy:
1) Download this big chunk in mozilla, then go to sleep
2) Compile this, then go to sleep
3) You can sleep now, but wake me up in 8:30 with mp3 player
Todays hardware is mostly capable of doing better: with correctly set
up wakeups, machine can sleep and successfully pretend it is not
sleeping -- by waking up whenever something interesting happens. Of
course, it is easier on machines not connected to the network, and on
notebook computers.
Requirements:
0) Working suspend-to-RAM, with kernel being able to bring video back.
1) RTC clock that can wake up system
2) Lid that can wake up a system,
or keyboard that can wake up system and does not loose keypress
or special screensaver setup
3) Network card that is either down
or can wake up system on any packet (and not loose too many packets)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
index 9663c2a..0f65aa9 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
@@ -178,6 +178,7 @@ void cpu_idle(void)
/* endless idle loop with no priority at all */
while (1) {
tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick();
+ detect_idle();
while (!need_resched()) {
void (*idle)(void);
diff --git a/drivers/input/input-polldev.c b/drivers/input/input-polldev.c
index 92b3598..83a8046 100644
--- ...IMHO you are making to many special cases. The system can be "sleepy" if all devices can be runtime suspended and all CPUs are idle. Regards Oliver --
Pretty much, except that "timer device" needs to be runtime suspended, too... We probably should not sleep if wakeup is scheduled 1 second in future. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html --
Is there an easy way to tell if all the devices are runtime suspended? I guess I need to know from atomic context :-(. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html --
Do you really want to know whether they are suspended or whether they Urgh. suspend() must be able to sleep and can fail. Regards Oliver --
If they are suspended. My plan is: let the drivers autosuspend on their own. If I see all of them are autosuspended, then it looks like great time to put whole That's ok. ... I also don't need to call any suspend() routines, because all the drivers are already suspended, right? And yes, I want device activity to prevent s2ram. If user is burning CD, machine should not sleep. If user is actively typing, machine should not sleep. My vision is: screen saver tells kernel keyboard need not be very responsive, at that point keyboard driver can autosuspend the keyboard, and if that was the last device, whole system sleeps. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html --
Hmm, right. Driver probably should have chance to autosuspend but tell the core that whole system probably should not sleep... Hmm.... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html --
Well, you have a number of devices which cannot do runtime pm. They can do suspend/resume with the whole system. For them these operations mean saving/restoring state. So for these devices implementing autosuspend makes no sense. In these cases the devices involved should report themselves busy, We lack a notion of telling devices that they are opened only for detecting wakeups. Currently a driver has to assume that an opened device has to be fully functional. Regards Oliver --
Yep... Let's call busy/idle detection and save/restore state "autosuspend" for those devices. It does not save any power, but it can be viewed as "kind-of-suspend". (No, I do not have this kind of Yes, we'll need to add some userland interfaces. No, this will not be easy. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html --
Well, you probably would have to walk through all devices and check all devices are either suspended or can be suspended. That would mean struct device has to be extended to show common attributes. But what's wrong with calling suspend() the conventional way once you've decided to go into sleepy mode? This mainly means input devices. Regards Oliver --
I'm not sure if it can be done in non-racy way. It is different from "conventional" suspend(): you can still have userland requests after this suspend(), and you should abort auto-sleep if you get one. (As opposed to blocking in system suspend case). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html --
But we are always racing against hardware in these cases. Strictly speaking you cannot have pure userland request. If no task is runnable and no timer about to fire any activity will require kernel activity unless you are doing direct hardware access from user space which in the generic case precludes suspension anyway. Regards Oliver --
This is the big crux I see. You're going to constantly wake up the machine due to broadcast packets, and spend a lot of power just going in and out of S3. -hpa --
Yep... for the first version, I'll be very happy if it autosleeps when I'm traveling by bus or something. Working with ethernet plugged in is quite a distant goal. (But I guess some cleverness could be done on the router or something. Automagically converting "interesting" packets into WoL enabled ones, or...?) Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html --
You've just eliminated 90%+ of the available Ethernet infrastructure. However, there may be Ethernet controllers which can do something smart with incoming packets, and perhaps more importantly, we can always write a spec and try to push it to Intel, Broadcom, Realtek and Nvidia. -hpa --
How many machines care a lot about saving power while they are connected to an ethernet? Wlan might be more of a problem. Regards Oliver --
A lot of them should. An inordinate amount of machines sit there burning power for no reason. You can argue that S3 isn't needed -- that nohz + C3/C4 + turning off the screen would be enough, and that might be legit. Heck, I'm constantly frustrated by every distro upgrade breaking power management for my monitor. -hpa --
NOHZ + C4 + turn off screen + turn off disk + turn off SATA is still ~8W on thinkpad x60. S3 is ~1W. That's quite significant difference. (But yes, connected-to-ethernet is not most important use scenario.) Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html --
Still... if we could get the desktops of the world down anywhere close to that range when not used, it would be a huge win. -hpa --
Plus, it is probably mandatory if you want EnergyStar logo ... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html --
Hi, This is about setting up properly the wakeup sources which means: - the wakeup source is really capable of generating wakeups for the target idle state - the wakeup source is not actually capable of genrating wakeups from the target idle state, which can be solved in 2 ways: - if the duration of the activity is known, set up an alarm (assuming alarms are proper wakeup sources) so that the system is ready just in time, in a less efficient but more responsive power saving state - if the duration of the activity is unknown choose the more efficient amongst the following solutions: - go to deep sleep state and periodically wakeup and poll, with a period compatible with the timing of the event source It might be that some hw doesn't provide deep power saving state for some devices, but if the only missing feature is the wakeup capability, These are just few system specific case, but if you start including USB devices, the situation is going to get quite complicated very soon, if you explicitly include certain HW devices in your model. -- Cheers, Igor Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@nokia.com> (Nokia Multimedia - CP - OSSO / Helsinki, Finland) --
very nice approach! It might require smarter hardware to be really efficient, but the generic ability for Linux to utilize S3 automatically would _quickly_ drive the creation of smarter hardware i'm sure - so i'd propose to include this even if it wastes power in some cases. a quick feature request: could you please make the wake-on-RTC capability generic and add a CONFIG_DEBUG_SUSPEND_ON_RAM=y config option (disabled by default) that does a short 1-second suspend-to-RAM sequence upon bootup? That way we could test s2ram automatically (which is a MUCH needed feature for automated regression testing and automatic bisection). In addition, some sort of 'suspend for N seconds' /sys or /dev/rtc capability would be nice as well. btw., how far are you from having a working prototype? Ingo --
Hmm, are you sure it is good idea to do this from kernel? I guess this SCSI/SATA issues stop me just now, but even if I get that to work, it will be extremely disgusting hack... and it is unclear how to do it nicely :-(. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html --
i have this low-prio effort to make all self-checks automatically available via 'make randconfig' as well, for all features that have no natural exposure during normal bootup. So far we've got rcutorture, kprobes-check, locking/lockdep-self-test and a handful of others. External scripts tend to go out of sync and LTP takes way too much time as long as the sleep periods are within say 10-20 seconds, and our s2ram cycle is fast and optimal enough, we could do this with networking enabled too, without dropping/stalling TCP connections left and right. (Perhaps if we could notify routers that they should batch packets for N seconds and we could turn off PHY during that time, it would be even nicer - is there any such router extension in existence?) but if it's nothing else but a s2ram debug/stress utility, that alone would be great too :-) Ingo --
Well, I can give you a three liner, and if it stops working, I'll treat is as a regression, because userland ABI changed...? Or you can get about 10 lines of C, no problem, but I do not think I expect to stress s2ram way too much ;-). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html --
