linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api.

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: <y2id6200be21005061648m47d03875h6e9de89d0e965344@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 May 2010 16:48:41 -0700
From:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...onice.net>,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api.

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> > Here's a completely new issue.  When using opportunistic suspends on an
>> > SMP system, it could happen that the system gets a wakeup event and
>> > this routine starts running again before the event's IRQ handler has
>> > finished (or has enabled a suspend blocker).  The system would
>> > re-suspend too soon.
>>
>> This routine will be run from a freezable workqueue.
>
> But how do you know that processes won't get unfrozen until all the
> pending IRQs have been handled?  Imagine something like this:
>
>        CPU 0                   CPU 1
>        -----                   -----
>        Wake up non-boot CPUs
>        Resume devices          Invoke the IRQ handler
>
>        [ CPU 0 should wait here for the handler to finish,
>          but it doesn't ]
>
>        Defrost threads         Handler running...
>        Workqueue routine runs
>        Start another suspend
>                                Handler enables a suspend blocker,
>                                but it's too late

It is not optimal, but it is not too late. We check if any suspend
blockers block suspend after disabling non-boot cpus so as long as
this is done in a way that does not lose interrupts the resuspend
attempt will not succeed.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/