| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0707041152350.25704-100000@netrider.rowland.org> Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:57:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 10:38:47AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > Okay, I agree that (1) can be handled without too much effort. But > > doing it adds an extra test to _every_ driver's I/O pathway. Freezing > > userspace does not incur all this additional overhead. > > For runtime PM to work it's already necessary to have a test in that > path to check if the device is suspended. I can't see how this adds any > overhead to the common case. Actually it isn't necessary to have a test to check if the device is suspended. We simply call the autoresume routine; if the device isn't suspended that routine doesn't have to do anything. I agree that that the extra test (for system-wide suspend underway) is needed only if the autoresume fails, which isn't part of the main pathway. So it doesn't add runtime overhead -- but handling it does add code overhead. Alan Stern - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists