| 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: <510B20B5.20900@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 10:56:05 +0900
From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Li, Fei" <fei.li@...el.com>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
anish singh <anish198519851985@...il.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] suspend: enable freeze timeout configuration through
sys
2013/02/01 10:33, Li, Fei wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@...k.pl]
>> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 6:29 AM
>> To: anish singh; Li, Fei
>> Cc: Yasuaki Ishimatsu; akpm@...ux-foundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
>> linux-pm@...r.kernel.org; Liu, Chuansheng
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] suspend: enable freeze timeout configuration through
>> sys
>>
>> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 03:22:25 PM anish singh wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Li, Fei <fei.li@...el.com> wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu [mailto:isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:30 PM
>>>>> To: Li, Fei
>>>>> Cc: rjw@...k.pl; akpm@...ux-foundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
>>>>> linux-pm@...r.kernel.org; Liu, Chuansheng
>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] suspend: enable freeze timeout configuration
>> through
>>>>> sys
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/01/31 13:55, fli24 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At present, the value of timeout for freezing is 20s, which is
>>>>>> meaningless in case that one thread is frozen with mutex locked
>>>>>> and another thread is trying to lock the mutex, as this time of
>>>>>> freezing will fail unavoidably.
>>>>>> And if there is no new wakeup event registered, the system will
>>>>>> waste at most 20s for such meaningless trying of freezing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With this patch, the value of timeout can be configured to smaller
>>>>>> value, so such meaningless trying of freezing will be aborted in
>>>>>> earlier time, and later freezing can be also triggered in earlier
>>>>>> time. And more power will be saved.
>>>>>> In normal case on mobile phone, it costs real little time to freeze
>>>>>> processes. On some platform, it only costs about 20ms to freeze
>>>>>> user space processes and 10ms to freeze kernel freezable threads.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Liu Chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Li Fei <fei.li@...el.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt | 5 +++++
>>>>>> include/linux/freezer.h | 5 +++++
>>>>>> kernel/power/main.c | 27
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> kernel/power/process.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>> 4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt
>>>>> b/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt
>>>>>> index 6ec291e..85894d8 100644
>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.txt
>>>>>> @@ -223,3 +223,8 @@ since they ask the freezer to skip freezing this
>> task,
>>>>> since it is anyway
>>>>>> only after the entire suspend/hibernation sequence is complete.
>>>>>> So, to summarize, use [un]lock_system_sleep() instead of directly using
>>>>>> mutex_[un]lock(&pm_mutex). That would prevent freezing failures.
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +V. Miscellaneous
>>>>>> +/sys/power/pm_freeze_timeout controls how long it will cost at most to
>>>>> freeze
>>>>>> +all user space processes or all freezable kernel threads, in unit of
>> millisecond.
>>>>>> +The default value is 20000, with range of unsigned integer.
>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/freezer.h b/include/linux/freezer.h
>>>>>> index e4238ce..5a24a33 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/freezer.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/freezer.h
>>>>>> @@ -13,6 +13,11 @@ extern bool pm_freezing; /* PM
>> freezing in effect
>>>>> */
>>>>>> extern bool pm_nosig_freezing; /* PM nosig freezing in
>> effect */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> + * Timeout for stopping processes
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +extern unsigned int sys_freeze_process_timeout_msecs;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> * Check if a process has been frozen
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> static inline bool frozen(struct task_struct *p)
>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/power/main.c b/kernel/power/main.c
>>>>>> index 1c16f91..453ead1 100644
>>>>>> --- a/kernel/power/main.c
>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/power/main.c
>>>>>> @@ -553,6 +553,30 @@ power_attr(pm_trace_dev_match);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_PM_TRACE */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FREEZER
>>>>>> +static ssize_t pm_freeze_timeout_show(struct kobject *kobj,
>>>>>> + struct kobj_attribute *attr, char
>> *buf)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", sys_freeze_process_timeout_msecs);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static ssize_t pm_freeze_timeout_store(struct kobject *kobj,
>>>>>> + struct kobj_attribute *attr,
>>>>>> + const char *buf, size_t n)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + unsigned long val;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (kstrtoul(buf, 10, &val))
>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + sys_freeze_process_timeout_msecs = val;
>>>>>> + return n;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +power_attr(pm_freeze_timeout);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_FREEZER*/
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> static struct attribute * g[] = {
>>>>>> &state_attr.attr,
>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_TRACE
>>>>>> @@ -576,6 +600,9 @@ static struct attribute * g[] = {
>>>>>> &pm_print_times_attr.attr,
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FREEZER
>>>>>> + &pm_freeze_timeout_attr.attr,
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>> NULL,
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/power/process.c b/kernel/power/process.c
>>>>>> index d5a258b..ba45a26 100644
>>>>>> --- a/kernel/power/process.c
>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/power/process.c
>>>>>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> * Timeout for stopping processes
>>>>>> */
>>>>>
>>>>>> -#define TIMEOUT (20 * HZ)
>>>>>> +unsigned int __read_mostly sys_freeze_process_timeout_msecs =
>> 20000;
>>>>>
>>>>> 20000 does not mean 20 seconds since we can select HZ other than 1000.
>>>>> So (20 * HZ) is better than 20000.
>>>>>
>>>> [Li, Fei]
>>>> Are you sure about this, (20*HZ) better than 20000, or you mean 20 *
>> MSEC_PER_SEC?
>>> Yasuaki mean HZ value will not always be 1000.The value of HZ differs for
>> each
>>> supported architecture. In fact, on some supported architectures,
>>> it even differs between machine types.
>>> When writing kernel code, never assume that HZ has any given value.
>>> Right now you are assuming that the delay will be always 20 seconds because
>> of
>>> your assumption of HZ.
>>
>> That's correct, the initial value should be 20 * HZ (i.e. as before).
> [Li, Fei]
> Yes, you are right, and IMHO it's already as this in the patch,
> as 20 * HZ == msecs_to_jiffies(20000), with the current definition MSEC_PER_SEC
> of 1000L. I'll update the default value as 20 * MSEC_PER_SEC in patch V4.
20 * MSEC_PER_SEC is not 20 seconds. In Linux, 1 * HZ is 1 seconds.
Thus,
- If HZ is defined as 1000, 1000 is 1 seconds.
- If HZ is defined as 250, 250 is 1 seconds.
20 * MSEC_PER_SEC is always 20000.
Thus,
- If HZ is defined as 1000, 20 * MSEC_PER_SEC is 20 seconds.
- If HZ is defined as 250, 20 * MSEC_PER_SEC is 80 seconds.
So you should use 20 * HZ if you define timeout at 20 seconds.
Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu.
>
>> Besides, the name of the variable doesn't need to be _that_ long.
>> What about freeze_timeout_msecs?
> [Li, Fei]
> Agree with you, and will update it in patch V4.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Li Fei
>
>> Rafael
>>
>>
>> --
>> I speak only for myself.
>> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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