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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201005312347.24251.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Mon, 31 May 2010 23:47:24 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, felipe.balbi@...ia.com,
	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 Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/5/30 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>:
...
> 
> I think it makes more sense to block suspend while wakeup events are
> pending than blocking it everywhere timers are used by code that could
> be called while handling wakeup events or other critical work. Also,
> even if you did block suspend everywhere timers where used you still
> have the race where a wakeup interrupt happens right after you decided
> to suspend. In other words, you still need to block suspend in all the
> same places as with the current opportunistic suspend code, so what is
> the benefit of delaying suspend until idle?

Assume for a while that you don't use suspend blockers, OK?  I realize you
think that anything else doesn't make sense, but evidently some other people
have that opinion about suspend blockers.

Now, under that assumption, I think it _generally_ is reasonable to make the
system go into full suspend if everything (ie. CPUs and I/O) has been idle
for sufficiently long time and there are no QoS requirements that aren't
compatible with full system suspend.

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/