linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume

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: <20090224230935.GA15165@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:09:35 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during
	suspend-resume


* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:

> On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > The only safe way on x86 to shutdown a level triggered ioapic irq
> > > > outside of irq context is for the driver to program the hardware to
> > > > not generate an irq.
> > > 
> > > Well, that changes things quite a bit, because it means we can't change the
> > > suspend-resume sequence in a way we thought we could without fixing all
> > > drivers first, but this is exactly what we'd like to avoid by changing the
> > > core.
> > 
> > Calling "disable_irq()" is perfectly fine.
> > 
> > What is not possible on that broken IO-APIC (among other 
> > things) is to actually turn the interrupts off at the apic 
> > (ie the whole ->shutdown() thing). But that's not what we 
> > even want to do. What we care about is just disabling the 
> > interrupt from a drievr perspective.
> > 
> > IOW, the patches I have seen are fine, and all the comments 
> > from Eric are just confusion about what we want done.
> 
> Ah, OK.  Thanks for the explanation, I got confused too.
> 
> > WE DO NOT WANT TO TURN OFF THE IO-APIC. That may or may 
> > happen later, but that's totally unrelated to this whole 
> > "suspend_device_irq()" thing.
> 
> Yeah.

We definitely dont want to turn off x86 IO-APICs - the timer IRQ 
goes via one of them.

	Ingo
--
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/