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: <4BFFC5DF.5030504@nokia.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 May 2010 16:32:15 +0300
From:	Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com>
To:	ext Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>
CC:	ext Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

ext Brian Swetland wrote:

> At a certain point, if one side of the argument is using "N900 / OMAP3
> works just fine as is" (which has certainly been the case stated by a
> number of folks throughout these discussions), I think it's a little
> unrealistic to express shock that somebody argues the opposing point.
>   
The problem lies in the definition of the goal and means to achieve it.
We do rely on repositories to discriminate on the quality of applications.
As I stated some are accessible and run by our community.

So, in this scenario, it works well enough.

> I've personally avoided commenting on specific power management issues
> or properties of competitive platforms because it can easily be viewed
> as rather rude or unprofessional.  (though in theory we all could
> benefit from any improvements to the kernel regarding power
> management, no?).
>   

What I consider plain wrong i to claim that since there are this many 
units out, some code should be merged.
A company needs to cut corners sometimes when making a product but this 
should not affect upstream code.
> I am quite willing to state that on both MSM and OMAP based Android
> platforms, we've found that the suspend blocker model allows us to
> obtain a lower average power draw than if we don't use it -- Mike Chan
> provided some numbers earlier in another thread in the trivial device
> idle case, the win is of course much larger in the case of several
> poorly behaved apps being active.
>   

That's very good. But if it is done in a conceptually flawed way, some 
better solution should be considered for upstream merge.

[snip]
> A reality of a mass market device with a completely open and
> unrestricted application development and distribution ecosystem is
> that there will be plenty of non-optimal apps available to users
> (Sturgeon's Law applies everywhere, after all).  Worse yet, many of
> these non-optimal apps may be beloved by users for various reasons.  I
> think there's value in trying to do the best you can power-wise even
> in the face of such horrible foes as the dreaded Bouncing Cows App
> that Matthew is fond of citing as an example.

Sure.

I simply disagree on the methods proposed (suspend_blockers) and some of 
the rationale used for promoting them (volume of otherwise unsupported 
units).

igor
--
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/