Re: [PATCH v1 05/12] PM: sleep: stats: Use step_failures[0] as a counter of successful cycles

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 8:52 AM Stanislaw Gruszka
<stanislaw.gruszka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:29:11PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The first (index 0) cell of the step_failures[] array in struct
> > suspend_stats introduced previously can be used as a counter of
> > successful suspend-resume cycles instead of the separate "success"
> > field in it, so do that.
> >
> > While at it, change the type of the "fail" field in struct
> > suspend_stats to unsigned int, because it cannot be negative.
> >
> > No intentional functional impact.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/suspend.h |    3 +--
> >  kernel/power/main.c     |    9 +++++----
> >  kernel/power/suspend.c  |    2 +-
> >  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/include/linux/suspend.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/suspend.h
> > +++ linux-pm/include/linux/suspend.h
> > @@ -55,8 +55,7 @@ enum suspend_stat_step {
> >
> >  struct suspend_stats {
> >       unsigned int step_failures[SUSPEND_NR_STEPS];
> > -     int     success;
> <snip>
> > -                suspend_stats.success, suspend_stats.fail);
> > +     seq_printf(s, "success: %u\nfail: %u\n",
> > +                suspend_stats.step_failures[SUSPEND_NONE],
> > +                suspend_stats.fail);
> >
> >       for (step = SUSPEND_FREEZE; step < SUSPEND_NR_STEPS; step++)
> >               seq_printf(s, "failed_%s: %u\n", suspend_step_names[step],
> > Index: linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > +++ linux-pm/kernel/power/suspend.c
> > @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ int pm_suspend(suspend_state_t state)
> >               suspend_stats.fail++;
> >               dpm_save_failed_errno(error);
> >       } else {
> > -             suspend_stats.success++;
> > +             suspend_stats.step_failures[SUSPEND_NONE]++;
>
> This looks confusing for me. I think would be better keep
> success field and just remove SUSPEND_NONE from the
> suspend_stat_step and suspend_stat_names. Actually do
> not introduce it, SUSPEND_NONE does not seems to be necessary
> (SUSPEND_FREEZE can be 0).

OK

I'll need to rearrange the series for that somewhat except for the
first two patches.

I guess it's OK to retain the R-by tags?

Thanks for all of the reviews!