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: <20100507213917.GE28906@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Fri, 7 May 2010 22:39:17 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
To:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	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.

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 02:25:56PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com> [100507 13:58]:
> > Here's a different example. A process is waiting for a keypress, but 
> > because it's badly written it's also drawing to the screen at 60 frames 
> > per second and preventing the system from every going to idle. How do 
> > you quiesce the system while still ensuring that the keypress will be 
> > delivered to the application?
> 
> I guess it depends. If it's a game and I'm waiting to hit the fire
> button, then I don't want the system to suspend!
> 
> It's starting to sound like you're really using suspend blocks
> to "certify" that the app is safe to keep running.
> 
> Maybe it could be done with some kind of process flag instead that
> would tell "this process is safe to keep running from timer point of view"
> and if that flag is not set, then assume it's OK to stop the process
> at any point?

How do you know to wake the process up in response to the keypress?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/