| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100805134741.GC20565@srcf.ucam.org> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:47:41 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: david@...g.hm Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pavel@....cz, florian@...kler.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu, swetland@...gle.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 04:19:20PM -0700, david@...g.hm wrote: > only consider the activity of a subset of processes when deciding if we > should suspend or not. If the decision is to suspend, freeze everything. > > you (and many other people) are confusing what I've proposed (use cgroups > to indicate what processes to care about and what ones to not care about > when deciding to suspend/go to idle) with the prior cgroup proposal (use > cgroups to freeze a subset of tasks while leaving others runnable) The decision on whether or not to go to sleep isn't the difficult bit of this problem space. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists