linux-kernel - Re: [update] Re: [PATCH] PM: Make it possible to avoid wakeup events from being lost

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: <20100630134750.GA16978@gvim.org>
Date:	Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:47:50 -0700
From:	mark gross <640e9920@...il.com>
To:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	mark gross <640e9920@...il.com>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: [update] Re: [PATCH] PM: Make it possible to avoid wakeup
 events from being lost

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:10:38AM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> Hi Rafael!
> 
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:01:53 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, June 28, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> > Subject: PM: Make it possible to avoid wakeup events from being lost
> 
> I have nothing substantial to add, but just wanted to let you know that
> this approach seems like a good alternative to me. As far as I can see
> the userspace suspend-blocker interface could be expressed in terms of
> this kernel facility which brings android closer to mainline.
> 
> The only thing I haven't thought through yet is the 'maintain a discrete
> set of constraints' vs 'just increment a number' thing. Especially if
> what we loose in information through that (in comparison to 'the other
> approach') is made up for by easier in-kernel-API.  I _think_ if there
> is any need for in-kernel-accounting (i don't know that) it could be
> retro-fitted by using the trace event infrastructure?

Adding ftracing hooks and some less invasive partial state or trace
support to this and pm_qos is likely the next order of business.

--mgross

> 
> 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/