linux-kernel - Re: [patch update 3] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices

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]

Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:17:38 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch update 3] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices

On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > In short, I think suspending (or queuing a suspend request) should fail if the
> > usage counter is nonzero, but the resuming (or queuing up a resume request)
> > should be possible regardless of its value.  The reason is that multiple
> > threads may in theory attempt to resume the device at the same time.
> 
> Agreed.  Suspends and resumes aren't symmetrical -- a single resume 
> request must outweigh numerous suspend requests.
> 
> > However, I'm not sure if the core should manipulate the usage counter by
> > itself, because it's sort of problematic (there's no good approach to decide
> > when to decrement the counter).
> 
> Yes.  The idea behind my previous message was that it's not really so
> easy for the core to decide when to _increment_ the counter either.
> 
> > So, I'd let the callers use pm_runtime_get() to increment the counter
> > and pm_runtime_put() to decrement it, possibly queuing up an idle notification
> > if the counter happens to reach 0.  Also, I'm not sure if unbalanced
> > pm_runtime_put() should be regarded as a bug.
> 
> It should be.  Once the counter is messed up, runtime PM wouldn't be
> able to work properly.  But maybe you should add a pm_set_counter call
> so that drivers can recover from imbalances.
> 
> One question still remains: If the counter is 0 at the end of a
> successful pm_runtime_resume, should the core then call pm_notify_idle?  
> Or should we make the driver responsible for that too?

Good question. :-)

I think the core may call pm_notify_idle() in that case, but not necessarily in
the synchronous case.

> > At the same time, I'd like the core to use runtime_status and the other
> > fields in dev_pm_info, except for the usage counter, to ensure that all
> > operations are only carried out when it makes sense.
> 
> Yes.  In fact, I'd say that when the counter is positive it doesn't
> make sense to allow a runtime suspend -- so you don't need that
> exception in your statement above.  :-)

Well, you're right.

Best,
Rafael
--
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/