linux-kernel - Re: Re: [RFC PATCH] suspend/resume performance improvement

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <310063525.576351432690353260.JavaMail.weblogic@epmlwas01d>
Date:	Wed, 27 May 2015 01:32:35 +0000 (GMT)
From:	EunTaik Lee <eun.taik.lee@...sung.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
	"len.brown@...el.com" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH] suspend/resume performance improvement


>> When a task that calls state_store() to suspend
>> the device has used up most of its time slice,
>> suspend sometimes take too long. (User noticeable)
>> 
>> Suspend/resume is a system wide operation.
>> So, instead of depending on a userspace task's time
>> slice, let kworker do the work to avoid a long wait
>> on the runqueue.

> All of that seems to duplicate the existing autosleep.c functionality.

Yes, the effect of using the kworker in autosleep will be same performance-wise.
But if a platform doesn't use the autosleep functionality then we still have the problem.
So doesn't it make sense to implement it for the autosleep-disabled use cases?