linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

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: <201005272315.28475.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Thu, 27 May 2010 23:15:28 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org" <Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

On Thursday 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
> > > >If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the
> > > >comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread:
> > > >
> > > >	The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even
> > > >	beneficial.
> > > 
> > > I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let 
> > > the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I 
> > > need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency.
> > 
> > Does this mean you believe "echo mem >/sys/power/state" is bad and
> > should be removed?  Or "echo disk >/sys/power/state"?  They pay no
> 
> mem should be replaced by an idle suspend to ram mechanism

Well, what about when I want the machine to suspend _regardless_ of whether
or not it's idle at the moment?  That actually happens quite often to me. :-)

> > attention to latencies or other requirements.
> 
> s2disk is a totally different beast as it shuts down the box into the
> complete power off state.

I don't see much difference between that and ACPI S3 other than the memory
contents are preserved in S3.  It also is complete power off state - except for
memory refresh and wakeup sources (which also may be active in S4).

Rafael
--
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/