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]

Date:	Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:55:00 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Gross, Mark" <mark.gross@...el.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"felipe.balbi@...ia.com" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 16:35 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > [mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation.  They change the constrain back and forth at the transaction level of the i2c driver.  The pm_qos code really wasn't made to deal with such hot path use, as each such change triggers a re-computation of what the aggregate qos request is.
> > > 
> > > That should be trivial in the usual case because 99% of the time you can
> > > hot path
> > > 
> > > 	the QoS entry changing is the latest one
> > > 	there have been no other changes
> > > 	If it is valid I can use the cached previous aggregate I cunningly
> > > 		saved in the top QoS entry when I computed the new one
> > > 
> > > (ie most of the time from the kernel side you have a QoS stack)
> > 
> > It's not just the list based computation: that's trivial to fix, as you
> > say ... the other problem is the notifier chain, because that's blocking
> > and could be long.  Could we invoke the notifier through a workqueue?
> > It doesn't seem to have veto power, so it's pure notification, does it
> > matter if the notice is delayed (as long as it's in order)?
> 
> It depends on the information type and for a lot of things we might
> get away without notifiers. 
> 
> The only real issue is when you need to get other cores out of their
> deep idle state to make a new constraint work. That's what we do with
> the DMA latency notifier right now.

But the only DMA latency notifier is cpuidle_latency_notifier.  That
looks callable from atomic context, so we could have two chains: one
atomic and one not.

The only other notifier in use is the ieee80211_max_network_latency,
which uses mutexes, so does require user context.

James


--
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/