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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTilR3CgkLRfxMN_A79kuC_KOgsfW4oNUDPZFlZFW@mail.gmail.com>
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/