linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)

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: <201005042244.16208.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Tue, 4 May 2010 22:44:16 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>, magnus.damm@...il.com,
	mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Geoff Smith <geoffx.smith@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)

On Tuesday 04 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 May 2010, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> writes:
> > 
> > > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 05:43:34PM -0700, Brian Swetland wrote:
> > >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Kevin Hilman
> > >
> > >> >> This last point is especially troubling.  I don't find it a comforting
> > >> >> path to go down if the drivers have to start caring about which PM
> > >> >> policy is currently in use.
> > >
> > >> I'll echo Arve here -- all drivers should seek to be in the lowest
> > >> power state possible at all times.  We've never suggested that
> > >> suspend_block is a substitute for that.
> > >
> > > Looking at this from a subsystem/driver author point of view the problem
> > > I'm faced with is that as a result of using system suspend much more
> > > aggressively the subsystem and driver layers are getting conflicting
> > > instructions about what the lowest power state possible is.
> > 
> > Exactly.
> > 
> > With runtime PM, there is flexibility in choosing the lowest power
> > state at the device/subsystem level, based on activity, timeouts,
> > bitrate, dependencies, latency/throughput constraints, etc.
> > 
> > With opportunistic suspend, all of this flexibility is gone, and the
> > device/subsystem is told to go into the lowest power, highest latency
> > state, period.
> 
> Guys, please.
> 
> The opportunistic suspend feature is _not_ to replace runtime PM by any means!
> 
> However, there are situations in which runtime PM is clearly insufficient.
> The idea behind runtime PM is that subsystems and device drivers will know
> when to put devices into low power states and save energy this way.  Still,
> even if all subsystems do that 100% efficiently, there may be more savings
> possible by putting the entire system into a sleep state (like on ACPI-based
> PCs) and we can reach there by runtime PM alone.

s/can/can't/; s/reach/go/

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/