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: <47E05408.7000003@suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:45:12 +0300
From:	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
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.

View attachment "x-rev.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1675 bytes)