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: <20140515000320.3c1c9256@jacob-desktop>
Date:	Thu, 15 May 2014 00:03:20 -0700
From:	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	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>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] PM / sleep: Mechanism to avoid resuming
 runtime-suspended devices unnecessarily

On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:29:42 -0400 (EDT)
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Jacob Pan wrote:
> 
> > > > should we respect ignore_children flag here? not all parent
> > > > devices create children with proper .prepare() function. this
> > > > allows parents override children.
> > > > I am looking at USB, a USB device could have logical children
> > > > such as ep_xx, they don't go through the same
> > > > subsystem .prepare().
> > > 
> > > Well, I'm not sure about that.  Let me consider that for a while.
> > OK. let me be more clear about the situation i see in USB. Correct
> > me if I am wrong, a USB device will always has at least one
> > endpoint/ep_00 as a kid for control pipe, it is a logical device.
> > So when device_prepare() is called, its call back is NULL which
> > makes .direct_complete = 0. Since children device suspend is called
> > before parents, the parents .direct_complete flag will always get
> > cleared.
> > 
> > What i am trying to achieve here is to see if we avoid resuming
> > built-in (hardwired connect_type) non-hub USB devices based on this
> > new patchset. E.g. we don't want to resume/suspend USB camera every
> > time in system suspend/resume cycle if they are already rpm
> > suspended. We can save ~100ms resume time for the devices we have
> > tested.
> 
> This is a good point, but I don't think it is at all related to 
> ignore_children.
> 
> Instead, it seems that the best way to solve it would be to add a 
> ->prepare() handler for usb_ep_device_type that would always turn 
> on direct_complete.
> 
yeah, that would solve the problem with EP device type. But what about
other subdevices. e.g. for USB camera, uvcvideo device? We can add
.prepare(return 1;) for each level but would it be better to have a
flag similar to ignore_children if not ignore_children itself.
Actually, I don't understand why this is not related to
ignore_children. Could you explain?

If the parent knows it can ignore children and already rpm suspended,
why do we still ask children?

> Alan Stern
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Jacob Pan]
--
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/