mirror of
https://github.com/hardkernel/linux.git
synced 2026-06-05 18:41:58 +09:00
22cd8e0def
After commit f5d39b0208 ("freezer,sched: Rewrite core freezer logic"),
tasks that transition directly from TASK_FREEZABLE to TASK_FROZEN are
always woken up on the thaw path. Prior to that commit, tasks could ask
freezer to consider them "frozen enough" via freezer_do_not_count(). The
commit replaced freezer_do_not_count() with a TASK_FREEZABLE state which
allows freezer to immediately mark the task as TASK_FROZEN without
waking up the task. This is efficient for the suspend path, but on the
thaw path, the task is always woken up even if the task didn't need to
wake up and goes back to its TASK_(UN)INTERRUPTIBLE state. Although
these tasks are capable of handling of the wakeup, we can observe a
power/perf impact from the extra wakeup.
We observed on Android many tasks wait in the TASK_FREEZABLE state
(particularly due to many of them being binder clients). We observed
nearly 4x the number of tasks and a corresponding linear increase in
latency and power consumption when thawing the system. The latency
increased from ~15ms to ~50ms.
Avoid the spurious wakeups by saving the state of TASK_FREEZABLE tasks.
If the task was running before entering TASK_FROZEN state
(__refrigerator()) or if the task received a wake up for the saved
state, then the task is woken on thaw. saved_state from PREEMPT_RT locks
can be re-used because freezer would not stomp on the rtlock wait flow:
TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT isn't considered freezable.
Reported-by: Prakash Viswalingam <quic_prakashv@quicinc.com>
Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
(cherry picked from commit 8f0eed4a78a81668bc78923ea09f51a7a663c2b0)
(cherry picked from commit e4d93065a5085dbb862aa4bd06fb3e51b02e8857
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/core)
Bug: 292064955
Change-Id: I121cfff46536a13e59b5eb60842984aed0d73faa
Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>
How do I submit patches to Android Common Kernels
-
BEST: Make all of your changes to upstream Linux. If appropriate, backport to the stable releases. These patches will be merged automatically in the corresponding common kernels. If the patch is already in upstream Linux, post a backport of the patch that conforms to the patch requirements below.
- Do not send patches upstream that contain only symbol exports. To be considered for upstream Linux,
additions of
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()require an in-tree modular driver that uses the symbol -- so include the new driver or changes to an existing driver in the same patchset as the export. - When sending patches upstream, the commit message must contain a clear case for why the patch is needed and beneficial to the community. Enabling out-of-tree drivers or functionality is not not a persuasive case.
- Do not send patches upstream that contain only symbol exports. To be considered for upstream Linux,
additions of
-
LESS GOOD: Develop your patches out-of-tree (from an upstream Linux point-of-view). Unless these are fixing an Android-specific bug, these are very unlikely to be accepted unless they have been coordinated with kernel-team@android.com. If you want to proceed, post a patch that conforms to the patch requirements below.
Common Kernel patch requirements
- All patches must conform to the Linux kernel coding standards and pass
scripts/checkpatch.pl - Patches shall not break gki_defconfig or allmodconfig builds for arm, arm64, x86, x86_64 architectures (see https://source.android.com/setup/build/building-kernels)
- If the patch is not merged from an upstream branch, the subject must be tagged with the type of patch:
UPSTREAM:,BACKPORT:,FROMGIT:,FROMLIST:, orANDROID:. - All patches must have a
Change-Id:tag (see https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-changeid.html) - If an Android bug has been assigned, there must be a
Bug:tag. - All patches must have a
Signed-off-by:tag by the author and the submitter
Additional requirements are listed below based on patch type
Requirements for backports from mainline Linux: UPSTREAM:, BACKPORT:
- If the patch is a cherry-pick from Linux mainline with no changes at all
- tag the patch subject with
UPSTREAM:. - add upstream commit information with a
(cherry picked from commit ...)line - Example:
- if the upstream commit message is
- tag the patch subject with
important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
- then Joe Smith would upload the patch for the common kernel as
UPSTREAM: important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
Bug: 135791357
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
(cherry picked from commit c31e73121f4c1ec41143423ac6ce3ce6dafdcec1)
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
- If the patch requires any changes from the upstream version, tag the patch with
BACKPORT:instead ofUPSTREAM:.- use the same tags as
UPSTREAM: - add comments about the changes under the
(cherry picked from commit ...)line - Example:
- use the same tags as
BACKPORT: important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
Bug: 135791357
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
(cherry picked from commit c31e73121f4c1ec41143423ac6ce3ce6dafdcec1)
[joe: Resolved minor conflict in drivers/foo/bar.c ]
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
Requirements for other backports: FROMGIT:, FROMLIST:,
- If the patch has been merged into an upstream maintainer tree, but has not yet
been merged into Linux mainline
- tag the patch subject with
FROMGIT: - add info on where the patch came from as
(cherry picked from commit <sha1> <repo> <branch>). This must be a stable maintainer branch (not rebased, so don't uselinux-nextfor example). - if changes were required, use
BACKPORT: FROMGIT: - Example:
- if the commit message in the maintainer tree is
- tag the patch subject with
important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
- then Joe Smith would upload the patch for the common kernel as
FROMGIT: important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
Bug: 135791357
(cherry picked from commit 878a2fd9de10b03d11d2f622250285c7e63deace
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/foo/bar.git test-branch)
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
- If the patch has been submitted to LKML, but not accepted into any maintainer tree
- tag the patch subject with
FROMLIST: - add a
Link:tag with a link to the submittal on lore.kernel.org - add a
Bug:tag with the Android bug (required for patches not accepted into a maintainer tree) - if changes were required, use
BACKPORT: FROMLIST: - Example:
- tag the patch subject with
FROMLIST: important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
Bug: 135791357
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190619171517.GA17557@someone.com/
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
Requirements for Android-specific patches: ANDROID:
- If the patch is fixing a bug to Android-specific code
- tag the patch subject with
ANDROID: - add a
Fixes:tag that cites the patch with the bug - Example:
- tag the patch subject with
ANDROID: fix android-specific bug in foobar.c
This is the detailed description of the important fix
Fixes: 1234abcd2468 ("foobar: add cool feature")
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
- If the patch is a new feature
- tag the patch subject with
ANDROID: - add a
Bug:tag with the Android bug (required for android-specific features)
- tag the patch subject with