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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3785462.Nrr6Y8ermz@aspire.rjw.lan> Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 15:18:15 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> To: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Vikas Bansal <vikas.bansal@...sung.com> Cc: "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 Wednesday, December 6, 2017 3:12:38 PM CET gregkh@...uxfoundation.org wrote: > 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. Also it is not clear to me if this fixes a mainline kernel issue, because the changelog mentions a driver doing something odd, but it doesn't say which one it is and whether or not it is in the tree. Thanks, Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists