linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] PM / sleep: Mechanism to avoid resuming runtime-suspended devices unnecessarily

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: <1798774.vz7tFfDHW5@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Thu, 15 May 2014 14:55:49 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] PM / sleep: Mechanism to avoid resuming runtime-suspended devices unnecessarily

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 02:06:59 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > Do we want to allow ->prepare() to return > 0 if the device isn't
> > runtime suspended?  If we do then non-suspended devices may be a common
> > case.  We should then avoid the extra overhead of disable + enable.
> > So I would write:
> >
> >         if (dev->power.direct_complete) {
> >                 if (pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev)) {
> >                         pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> >                         if (dev->power.disable_depth == 1
> >                             && pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev))
> >                                 goto Complete;
> >                         pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> >                 }
> >                 dev->power.direct_complete = false;
> >         }
> >
> 
> I am wondering whether the above pm_runtime_disable|enable actually
> belongs better in driver/subsystem in favour of the PM core?

No, it doesn't.

> Doesn't the driver/subsystem anyway needs to be on top of what goes
> on? Typically, while runtime PM has been disabled, that might affect
> it's wakeup handling? Or this case are already handled due to other
> circumstances?

Yes, that's the case.

Thanks!

-- 
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/