linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] usb: Add support for runtime power management of the hcd

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:30:34 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
Cc:	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] usb: Add support for runtime power management
	of the hcd

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 02:16:41PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 13. August 2009 02:35:44 schrieb Matthew Garrett:
> 
> > The power savings from this are measurable but not huge - it still seems
> 
> How large?

About 0.2W on an ich9 system.

> > like a decent optimisation. The main problem is that BIOS bugs on some
> > Dell laptops will kill USB if this is used, so we either default to off
> > or add some quirks to handle that case (I have some ideas in that
> > respect).
> 
> Your earlier failures don't look promising regarding BIOSes.
> What do you have in mind?

They range from pragmatic to ugly. We could blacklist all Dells, though 
I'm trying to find out if there's a BIOS date that guarantees the system 
is fixed. Alternatively, it's a single-line bug in the DSDT - we could 
implement some kind of fixup in the ACPI parsing code. I find the latter 
interesting but possibly too hideous to live :)

> > @@ -1968,6 +1972,9 @@ struct usb_hcd *usb_create_hcd (const struct
> > hc_driver *driver, INIT_WORK(&hcd->wakeup_work, hcd_resume_work);
> >  #endif
> >
> > +	pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> 
> So you don't get a reference from that?

No, but...

> > +	pm_runtime_get(dev);
> 
> What happens if you get a runtime suspend request in between? Is this a flaw
> of the API?

I suspect that just swapping the order of those two lines would be fine.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/