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: <20100605223708.7d8ff451@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date:	Sat, 5 Jun 2010 22:37:08 +0200
From:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tytso@....edu,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	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>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: suspend blockers & Android integration

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> The thing is, unless there is some _really_ deep other reason to do 
> something like this, I still think it's total overdesign to push any 
> knowledge/choices like this into the scheduler. I'd rather keep things way 
> more independent, less tied to each other and to deep kernel subsystems.
> 
> IOW, my personal opinion is that somethng like a suspend (blocker or not) 
> decision simply shouldn't be important enough to be tied into the 
> scheduler. Especially not if it could just be its own layer.
> 
> That said, as far as I know, the Android people have mostly been looking 
> at the suspend angle from a single-core standpoint. And I'm not at all 
> convinced that they should hijack the existing "/sys/power/state" thing 
> which is what I think they do now.
> 
> And those two things go together. The /sys/power/state thing is a global 
> suspend - which I don't think is appropriate for a opportunistic thing in 
> the first place, especially for multi-core.
> 

This sounds right. 

If there is soo much need for a better solution, it will emerge. With
merged suspend blockers or not.

Just my 2 cents.

> 			Linus

Cheers,
Flo
--
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/