linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/5] irq / PM: Shared IRQs vs IRQF_NO

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3321219.itH23ZEDt4@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Tue, 05 Aug 2014 17:22:57 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] irq / PM: Shared IRQs vs IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and suspend-to-idle wakeup

On Friday, August 01, 2014 04:29:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 01, 2014 03:43:21 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Aug 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > OK, I guess "IRQ_HANDLED from a wakeup interrupt" may be interpreted as
> > > IRQ_HANDLED_PMWAKE.  On the other hand, if that's going to be handled in
> > > handle_irq_event_percpu(), then using a special return code would save us
> > > a brach for IRQ_HANDLED interrupts.  We could convert it to IRQ_HANDLED
> > > immediately then.
> > 
> > We can handle it at the end of the function by calling
> > note_interrupt() unconditionally do the following there:
> > 
> >       if (suspended) {
> >       	 if (ret == IRQ_NONE) {
> > 	    if (shared)
> > 	       yell_and_abort_or_resume();
> >          } else {
> > 	    abort_or_resume();
> >          }
> >       }
> >       if (noirqdebug)
> >       	 return;
> 
> I see.
> 
> > > OK, I'll take a stab at the IRQF_SHARED thing if you don't mind.
> > 
> > Definitely not :)
> > 
> > > Here's my current understanding of what can be done for IRQF_NO_SUSPEND.
> > > 
> > > In suspend_device_irqs():
> > > 
> > > (1) If all actions in the list have the same setting (eg. IRQF_NO_SUSPEND unset),
> > >     keep the current behavior.
> > > (2) If the actions have different settings:
> > >     - Actions with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND set are not modified.
> > >     - Actions with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND unset are switched over to a stub handler.
> > >     - IRQS_SUSPEND_MODE (new flag) is set for the IRQ.
> > 
> > Can we please do that in setup_irq() and let the shared ones always
> > run through the stub? That keeps suspend/resume_device_irqs() simple.
> 
> OK

Here's a patch series based on what we talked about.

[1/5] Mechanism to wake up the system or abort suspend in progress automatically.
[2/5] Fix for shared IRQs vs IRQF_NO_SUSPEND (with wakeup in mind).
[3/5] Wakeup interrupts support for suspend-to-idle.
[4/5] Set IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE for x86 IOAPIC IRQ chips.
[5/5] Make PCIe PME wake up from suspend to idle.

All tested on MSI Wind that has a couple of issues being addressed.

Rafael

--
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/