linux-kernel - Re: suspend blockers & Android integration

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: <20100604170738.75c7436e@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date:	Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:07:38 +0200
From:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	tytso@....edu, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: suspend blockers & Android integration

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 09:24:06 -0500
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 11:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Anyway, i'm not pessimistic at all: _some_ sort of scheme appears to be 
> > crystalising out today. Everyone seems to agree now that the main usecases are 
> > indeed useful and need handling one way or another - the rest is really just 
> > technological discussions how to achieve the mostly-agreed-upon end goal.
> 
> It's still not clear to me whether everyone's revolving around to using
> the current suspend block API because it's orthogonal to all other
> mechanisms and is therefore separate from the kernel (and can be
> compiled out if you don't want it).  Or whether re-expressing what the
> android drivers want (minimum idle states and suspend block) in pm_qos
> terms which others can use is the way to go.  I think the latter, but
> I'd like to know what other people think (because I'm not wedded to this
> preference).

I'd like to know that also. 
I have a patch to add pm_qos_add_request_nonblock function, so it is
possible to register an pm_qos constraint by passing preallocated
memory to it. 

Notifying should be possible to do from atomic contexts via
async_schedule()?

The scalability issues of pm_qos can be adressed by using plists for
all pm_qos_class'es. Or by having the different pm_qos_class'es provide
their own implementations for the update and get operations. 

Cheers,
Flo

> 
> 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/