linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.

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: <20100527181333.GA8297@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date:	Thu, 27 May 2010 11:13:34 -0700
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...onice.net>,
	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 05:52:40PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/5/26 Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>:
> > On Wed, 26 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >
> >> > I must be missing something.  In Arve's patch 1/8, if the system is in
> >> > opportunistic suspend, and a wakeup event occurs but no suspend
> >> > blockers get enabled by the handler, what causes the system to go back
> >> > into suspend after the event is handled?  Isn't that a loop of some
> >> > sort?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes it is a loop. I think what you are missing is that it only loops
> >> repeatedly if the driver that aborts suspend does not use a suspend
> >> blocker.
> >
> > You mean "the driver that handles the wakeup event".  I was asking what
> > happened if suspend succeeded and then a wakeup occurred.  But yes, if
> > a suspend blocker is used then its release causes another suspend
> > attempt, with no looping.
> >
> >> > And even if it isn't, so what?  What's wrong with looping behavior?
> >>
> >> It is a significant power drain.
> >
> > Not in the situation I was discussing.
> >
> 
> If you meant it spend most of the time suspended, then I agree. It
> only wastes power when a driver blocks suspend by returning an error
> from its suspend hook and we are forced to loop doing no useful work.
> 

If driver refuses to suspend that means there are events that need
processing. I fail to see why it would be called "looping doing no
useful work".

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/