Subject: [PATCH v4 1/3] PM / Hibernate: Allow arch code to influence CPUs disabled during hibernate

From: [email-masked] (James Morse)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 09:29:36 +0100

On 06/07/16 01:38, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 04, 2016 03:52:28 PM James Morse wrote:
>> Architecture code may need to do extra work when secondary CPUs are
>> disabled during hibernate and resume. This may include pushing sleeping
>> CPUs into a deeper power-saving state, or influencing which CPU resume
>> occurs on.
>>
>> Define a macro arch_hibernation_disable_cpus(), which defaults to
>> calling disable_nonboot_cpus() if undefined. Architectures that
>> need to do extra work around these calls can use this to influence
>> the CPU down calls.
>> The macros should be defined in asm/suspend.h, and
>> ARCH_HIBERNATION_CPU_HOOKS should be added to Kconfig.

>> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
>> index fca9254280ee..855a3a2374c8 100644
>> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
>> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
>> @@ -31,8 +31,16 @@
>>  #include <linux/ktime.h>
>>  #include <trace/events/power.h>
>>  
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HIBERNATION_CPU_HOOKS
>> +/* Arch definition of the arch_hibernation_disable_cpus() macros? */
>> +#include <asm/suspend.h>
>> +#endif
>> +
>>  #include "power.h"
>>  
>> +#ifndef arch_hibernation_disable_cpus
>> +#define arch_hibernation_disable_cpus(x) disable_nonboot_cpus()
>> +#endif
>>  
>>  static int nocompress;
>>  static int noresume;
>> @@ -279,7 +287,7 @@ static int create_image(int platform_mode)
>>  	if (error || hibernation_test(TEST_PLATFORM))
>>  		goto Platform_finish;
>>  
>> -	error = disable_nonboot_cpus();
>> +	error = arch_hibernation_disable_cpus(true);
>>  	if (error || hibernation_test(TEST_CPUS))
>>  		goto Enable_cpus;
>>  
>> @@ -433,7 +441,7 @@ static int resume_target_kernel(bool platform_mode)
>>  	if (error)
>>  		goto Cleanup;
>>  
>> -	error = disable_nonboot_cpus();
>> +	error = arch_hibernation_disable_cpus(false);
> 
> Why "false"?

To indicate whether this is suspend or resume. On suspend we just call
disable_nonboot_cpus(), this ensures frozen_cpus and the potential races with
userspace are covered properly. At this point we don't care which CPU it picks.

On resume we know which CPU we want, so cpu_down() all the others. I thought the
frozen_cpus and user-space race wouldn't be a problem here, but Lorenzo
suggested it may confuse some device drivers to receive a CPU_DOWN_PREPARE etc
followed by CPU_UP_PREPARE_FROZEN etc.

I haven't found any drivers in the tree where this would be a problem (~95% of
notifiers either mask out the frozen bits, or fall-through in those cases). But
I'm still going through the list...

> 
>>  	if (error)
>>  		goto Enable_cpus;
>>  
>> @@ -551,7 +559,7 @@ int hibernation_platform_enter(void)
>>  	if (error)
>>  		goto Platform_finish;
>>  
>> -	error = disable_nonboot_cpus();
>> +	error = arch_hibernation_disable_cpus(true);
> 
> I have the same question about this hunk I had before.
> 
> Is it really necessary to do the arch thing here?

Ah, sorry I didn't understand what this did before. This is used when ACPI
drives hibernate/resume instead of swsusp_arch_suspend().

No, its not needed.

> It shouldn't really matter AFAICS.
> 
>>  	if (error)
>>  		goto Enable_cpus;

Thanks,

James