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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 18:16:15 -0700 From: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com> To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.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) On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote: > 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. > How did you handle external events that occur right after you decided to sleep? > 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... -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists