linux-kernel - Re: Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code)

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: <20090608142450.GE14234@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:24:50 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM:
	Rearrange core suspend code)


* Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:46:47PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
>
> > > How does the kernel know whether the user cares about SATA 
> > > hotplug or not?
> > 
> > The typical user probably doesnt know what 'SATA' means, and 
> > probably has very vague concepts about 'hotplug' as well.
> 
> eSATA is pretty common now.

[ And 99% of the CPUs have an IDT still 99.9% of the users dont know 
  what it is :) ]

> > The kernel default should be: 'yes, if the kernel feature is 
> > enabled and if the hardware can support it' (it's not on a 
> > blacklist of some sort, etc., etc.).
> 
> The problem with this kind of default is that you get people who 
> are confused that their hardware doesn't work.

If the hardware 'doesnt work' that is a kernel bug. Hardware that 
_cannot be suspended_ safely (physically) should not be 
auto-suspended, of course.

> If the kernel doesn't have enough information to make a decision 
> it should err on the side of functionality - we're talking about 
> fairly low-level power savings, but potentially several years of 
> aggregate confusion on the part of users.

the difference between a 10W and a 1W footprint is a long series of 
'low-level power savings'.

If users are getting confused and if hardware gets broken then tha's 
a plain bug and the wrong path is being walked.

> > What sources of information exactly? Again, the user wont enter 
> > anything, in 95% of the cases - in the remaining 3% of cases 
> > what is entered is wrong and only in another 2% of cases is it 
> > correct ;-)
> 
> Users are generally ok at realising correlation between a setting 
> change and something no longer working, so as long as you provide 
> that they'll be happy. I agree that this sucks. What we actually 
> want is some means of reliably identifying whether a port is 
> hotplug or not, but eSATA makes this very difficult.

Is it impossible?

> > Sure, there might be tradeoffs when a piece of hardware cannot 
> > be turned off sanely: obviously the monitor might not know it 
> > (currently) whether someone is watching it, and 
> > wake-on-packet-for-me is not commonly implemented in wireless 
> > and wired networking cards so turning off an active networking 
> > card might not be possible without the user asking allowing that 
> > imperfect mode of power saving.
> 
> These cases can all be handled with sufficiently intelligent 
> userland, so I'm not worried about them.
> 
> > ( Providing a way to _override_ those defaults is of course natural,
> >   via /sysfs, should the user express an interest in tweaking it, or
> >   should the kernel get it so wrong that a distro wants to work it
> >   around. But your argument seems to be "push configuration and
> >   handling into user-space" which is really backwards. )
> 
> My argument is "Hardware should work, and if the kernel default is 
> for it to be broken then the default is wrong". We went through 
> this for USB autosuspend. Userspace simply has more available 
> information than the kernel, and it's not just a matter of static 
> configuration (though that may be part of it). For instance, 
> Oliver's example of screensavers and USB keyboards. If nothing's 
> paying attention to volume keys (or if the keyboard doesn't have 
> any) then you can enable remote wakeup and suspend the keyboard. 
> If something /is/ paying attention to volume keys, you can't do 
> that. That's the kind of case I'm discussing.

See my reply to Oliver. This is really advocating a broken model of 
device usage. That volume key usage dependency is being hidden from 
the kernel, and then you want to kludge it around by pushing suspend 
functionality to user-space? That way lies madness. The proper way 
is to close the device if it's not used by anything. Then the kernel 
can auto-suspend it just like it could auto-suspend network 
interfaces that are not in use, or like it could auto-suspend a 
dislay port that has no monitor or other output device attached.

	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/