linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

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:	Tue, 1 Jun 2010 19:51:23 -0700
From:	mark gross <640e9920@...il.com>
To:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
Cc:	markgross@...gnar.org, 640e9920@...il.com,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:07:37AM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:26:17 -0700
> mark gross <640e9920@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:38:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> > > > 2010/5/29 Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>:
> > > > > On Sat, 29 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> > In place of in-kernel suspend blockers, there will be a new type of QoS
> > > > >> > constraint -- call it QOS_EVENTUALLY.  It's a very weak constraint,
> > > > >> > compatible with all cpuidle modes in which runnable threads are allowed
> > > > >> > to run (which is all of them), but not compatible with suspend.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> This sound just like another API rename. It will work, but given that
> > > > >> suspend blockers was the name least objectionable last time around,
> > > > >> I'm not sure what this would solve.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not just a rename.  By changing this into a QoS constraint, we
> > > > > make it more generally useful.  Instead of standing on its own, it
> > > > > becomes part of the PM-QOS framework.
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > We cannot use the existing pm-qos framework. It is not safe to call
> > > > from atomic context.
> > > 
> > > We've just merged a patch that fixed that if I'm not mistaken.  Mark, did your
> > > PM QoS update fix that?
> > >
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure it can be called in atomic context, and if its not I'm
> > sure we can fix that.  It can be called in atomic context.  I don't
> > think it was ever a problem to call it in atomic context.  The problem it
> > had was that crappy list of string compares.  Thats been fixed.
> > 
> > --mgross
> >  
> 
> Well, the register call uses kzalloc. Apart from that I
> think we're good. 

registering shouldn't need to be called in atomic context.  Its the
update_request that needs to be callible form atomic context.

--mgross

 
--
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/