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]

Date:	Mon, 24 May 2010 20:57:54 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	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)

Hi!

> I agree that the runtime scenario is a far more appealing one from an 
> aesthetic standpoint, but so far we don't have a very compelling 
> argument for dealing with the starting and stopping of userspace. The 
> use-cases that Google have provided are valid and they have an 
> implementation that addresses them, and while we're unable to provide an 
> alternative that provides the same level of functionality I think we're 
> in a poor position to prevent this from going in.

Uhuh?

"We have this ugly code here, but it works and we don't have better
one, so lets merge it"?

I don't really like this line of reasoning. I would not want to judge
wakelocks here, but... "it works, merge it" should not be used as
argument.

And btw I do have wakelock-less implementation of autosleep, that only
sleeped the machine when nothing was ready to run. It was called
"sleepy linux". Should I dig it out?

Major difference was that it only sleeped the machine when it was
absolutely certain machine is idle and no timers are close to firing
-- needing elimination or at least markup of all short timers. It
erred on side of not sleeping the machine when it would break
something.

Still I believe it is better design than wakelocks -- that need
markup/fixes to all places where machine must not sleep -- effectively
sleeping the machine too often than fixing stuff with wakelocks all
over kernel and userspace...
								Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/