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: <CAJZ5v0hvCuJbt8wtCJFcLRpCdkNu=vGEuA7_dCWhkXgvGxgizw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jan 2018 12:21:43 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / runtime: Rework pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume()

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 01:56:28AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

[cut]

>
>> One addition that would be really helpful:  pm_runtime_force_suspend()
>> should also force-suspend all children and consumers of the given
>> device.  Likewise, those should be resumed on pm_runtime_force_resume().
>> Then I could just add a device link from the audio PCI device on the GPU
>> to the graphics PCI device and just call pm_runtime_force_*() on the
>> graphics device (supplier) to magically power them both off and on.
>
> Actually, the assumption is that pm_runtime_force_suspend() must be
> called for the children before it is called for the parent even
> without my patch, so it is just not going to work this way.

Moreover, what if those devices have nonzero usage counters?  There
may be other reasons for that than just dependencies, like for example
user space might have written "on" to their "control" files in sysfs.

What you are looking for doesn't seem to match the runtime PM
framework's assumptions, I'm afraid.

Thanks,
Rafael

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ