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:	Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:10:26 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)

On Sunday 20 December 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > > It's too early to come to this sort of conclusion (i.e., that suspend
> > > and resume react very differently to an asynchronous approach).  Unless
> > > you have some definite _reason_ for thinking that resume will benefit
> > > more than suspend, you shouldn't try to generalize so much from tests
> > > on only two systems.
> > 
> > In fact I have one reason.  Namely, the things that drivers do on suspend and
> > resume are evidently quite different and on these two systems I was able to
> > test they apparently took different amounts of time to complete.
> > 
> > The very fact that on both systems resume is substantially longer than suspend,
> > even if all devices are suspended and resumed synchronously, is quite
> > interesting.
> 
> Yes, it is.  But it doesn't mean that suspend won't benefit from 
> asynchronicity; it just means that the benefits might not be as large 
> as they are for resume.

Agreed, although that rises the question whether they are sufficiently
significant.  I guess time will tell.  With the i8042 done asynchronously they
are IMO.

BTW, what's the right place to call device_enable_async_suspend() for USB
devices?

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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ