linux-kernel - Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

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:	Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arve@...roid.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, pavel@....cz,
	florian@...kler.org, rjw@...k.pl, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
	peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, menage@...gle.com,
	david-b@...bell.net, James.Bottomley@...e.de, arjan@...radead.org,
	swmike@....pp.se, galibert@...ox.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:24:53AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
>>> would agree that in the ideal world, it would be nice if you could
>>> have applications that make the correct performance/battery
>>> utilization tradeoff for devices running on 800 mWh batteries, 94,000
>>> mWh batteries, and while running on the AC mains.  But I don't believe
>>> that it's likely to be true, and if you want to try to beat up on
>>> application writers one at a time to be power optimized --- as far as
>>> I'm concerned, that's an argument *for* suspend blockers, since I'm
>>> not big believer in plans that begin, "First, you command the tides of
>>> the sea to go back", King Canute style.  :-)
>>
>> Suspend blockers drive the system policy part way into the apps, that in
>> turn makes the apps very vulnerable to change in their environment because
>> you've specialised them. I am sure that in the Android world it's
>> considered fine, and that the marketing and business people even like
>> this binding together - but it doesn't generalise and will blow up in
>> people's faces in the future.
>>
>> To consider your tide analogy - suspend blockers is like trying to
>> program the waves individually. Show me a suspend blocker aware open
>> office patch 8)
>
> But wouldn't an office suite run as a power-oblivious application on an
> Android device?  After all, office applications do not need to run when
> the screen is turned off, so these the applications do not need to use
> suspend blockers.  That said, I could easily imagine that significant
> work would be required to make OpenOffice run on Android, not due to
> suspend blockers, but rather due to Android's unusual user space.

pick your application if you don't like the example.

but also, which android system should the applicaton be written for? the 
phone with a 800maH battery or a larger device with a 94,000maH battery?

well bahaved applications (not doing unnecessary wakeups, etc) are well 
bahaved, no matter what system they are on (explicitly setting allowable 
timer fuzz is linux specific, but will again help on any system)

David Lang
--
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/