| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:59:06 -0500 (EST) From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> 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 Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > So, seriously, do you think it makes sense to do asynchronous suspend at all? > I'm asking, because we're likely to get into troubles like this during suspend > for other kinds of devices too and without resolving them we won't get any > significant speedup from asynchronous suspend. > > That said, to me it's definitely worth doing asynchronous resume with the > "start asynch threads upfront" modification, as the results of the tests show > that quite clearly. I hope you agree. 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. Alan Stern -- 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