linux-kernel - Re: suspend slow in 2.6.25-rc6 (was Re: Suspend and hibernation patchset against -rc6)

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]

Message-ID: <20080319114924.GC21270@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date:	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:49:24 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Subject: Re: suspend slow in 2.6.25-rc6 (was Re: Suspend and hibernation	patchset against -rc6)

> Pavel Machek wrote:
> >On Tue 2008-03-18 10:31:28, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>
> >>On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >>>On Tue 2008-03-18 14:06:42, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >>>>Confirmed, suspend slowness is in 2.6.25-rc6, too. It takes 15 seconds
> >>>>to suspend/resume, while 2.6.24 takes 9. Thinkpad x60.
> >>>IIRC 2.6.25-rc5 was "fast".
> >>Can you bisect it? There's only 343 commits between -rc5 and -rc6, so it 
> >>should not take too long to check which commit it is. Even if it should 
> >>take 9 reboots to bisect it entirely, going just five or six will likely 
> >>narrow it down sufficiently that we can probably guess fairly well what 
> >>it's about.
> >
> >Slowdown is fixed by this patch:
> I think only this part is relevant here. But yes, I agree that the whole 
> patch should be reverted.
> >@@ -230,7 +227,6 @@ static int acpi_ec_wait(struct acpi_ec *
> > 		while (time_before(jiffies, delay)) {
> > 			if (acpi_ec_check_status(ec, event))
> > 				goto end;
> >-			msleep(5);
> > 		}
> > 	}
> > 	pr_err(PREFIX "acpi_ec_wait timeout,"
> Thanks,
> Alex.

> ACPI: EC: Revert storm handler patch
> 
> From: Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>
> 
> Patch have caused several new troubles, so just revert it for now.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>

Tested-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
ACK.
									Pavel


-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/