linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1] PM: In kernel power management domain

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: <20171206141238.GB11339@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:12:38 +0100
From:   "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Vikas Bansal <vikas.bansal@...sung.com>
Cc:     "rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "len.brown@...el.com" <len.brown@...el.com>,
        "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] PM: In kernel power management domain_pm created for
 async schedules

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:07:14PM +0000, Vikas Bansal wrote:
> Description:

Why is this here?

> 
> If there is a driver in system which starts creating async schedules
> just after resume (Same as our case, in which we faced issue).
> Then async_synchronize_full API in PM cores starts waiting for completion
> of async schedules created by that driver (Even though those are in a domain).
> Because of this kernel resume time is increased (We faces the same issue)
> and whole system is delayed.
> This problem can be solved by creating a domain for
> async schedules in PM core (As we solved in our case).
> Below patch is for solving this problem.

Very odd formatting.

> 
> Changelog:
> 1. Created Async domain domain_pm.
> 2. Converted async_schedule to async_schedule_domain.
> 3. Converted async_synchronize_full to async_synchronize_full_domain

I'm confused.  Have you read kernel patch submissions?  Look at how they
are formatted.  The documentation in the kernel tree should help you out
a lot here.

Also, this is not v1, it has changed from the previous version.  Always
describe, in the correct way, the changes from previous submissions.


> 
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vikas Bansal <vikas.bansal@...sung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Anuj Gupta <anuj01.gupta@...sung.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/power/main.c |   27 +++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> index db2f044..042b034 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
>  #include "power.h"
>  
>  typedef int (*pm_callback_t)(struct device *);
> +static ASYNC_DOMAIN(domain_pm);
>  
>  /*
>   * The entries in the dpm_list list are in a depth first order, simply
> @@ -615,7 +616,8 @@ void dpm_noirq_resume_devices(pm_message_t state)
>  		reinit_completion(&dev->power.completion);
>  		if (is_async(dev)) {
>  			get_device(dev);
> -			async_schedule(async_resume_noirq, dev);
> +			async_schedule_domain(async_resume_noirq, dev, 

Always run your patches through scripts/checkpatch.pl so you do you not
get grumpy maintainers telling you to use scripts/checkpatch.pl

Stop.  Take some time.  Redo the patch in another day or so, and then
resend it later, _AFTER_ you have addressed the issues.  Don't rush,
there is no race here.

greg k-h