linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [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: <20100507022024.GI30928@atomide.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 May 2010 19:20:24 -0700
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>, markgross@...gnar.org,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api.

* Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> [100506 11:42]:
> On Thu, 6 May 2010, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> 
> > Well if your hardware runs off-while-idle or even just
> > retention-while-idle, then the basic shell works just fine waking up
> > every few seconds or so.
> > 
> > Then you could keep init/shell/suspend policy deamon running until
> > it's time to suspend the whole device. To cut down runaway timers,
> > you could already freeze the desktop/GUI/whatever earlier.
> 
> This comes down mostly to efficiency.  Although the suspend blocker
> patch does the actual suspending in a workqueue thread, AFAIK there's
> no reason it couldn't use a user thread instead.
> 
> The important difference lies in what happens when a suspend fails
> because a driver is busy.  Without suspend blockers, the kernel has to
> go through the whole procedure of freezing userspace and kernel threads
> and then suspending a bunch of drivers before hitting the one that's
> busy.  Then all that work has to be undone.  By contrast, with suspend
> blockers the suspend attempt can fail right away with minimal overhead.

But does that really matter if you're only few tens of times times per
day or so? I don't understand why you would want to try to suspend except
after some timeout of no user or network activity.
 
> There's also a question of reliability.  With suspends controlled by 
> userspace there is a possibility of races, which could lead the system 
> to suspend when it shouldn't.  With control in the kernel, these races 
> can be eliminated.

I agree the suspend needs to happen without races. But I think the
logic for when to suspend should be done in the userspace as it
can be device or user specific.

Regards,

Tony
--
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/