Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754650Ab0FESYK (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jun 2010 14:24:10 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:54964 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752312Ab0FESYH convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jun 2010 14:24:07 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Arve =?iso-8859-1?q?Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= Subject: Re: suspend blockers & Android integration Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:25:11 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.35-rc1-rjw; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Matt Helsley , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , tytso@mit.edu, Brian Swetland , Neil Brown , Alan Stern , Felipe Balbi , LKML , Florian Mickler , Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM , Alan Cox , James Bottomley , Linus Torvalds , Kevin Hilman , "H. Peter Anvin" , Arjan van de Ven References: <20100603193045.GA7188@elte.hu> <20100605011826.GB21016@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <201006052025.11526.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2161 Lines: 51 On Saturday 05 June 2010, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote: > 2010/6/4 Matt Helsley : > > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 05:39:17PM -0700, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > >> > >> > With the cgroup freezer you can "suspend" them right away and > >> > just keep the trusted background task(s) alive which allows us to > >> > go into deeper idle states instead of letting the crapplications > >> > run unconfined until the download finished and the suspend > >> > blocker goes away. > >> > > >> > >> Yes this would be better, but I want it in addition to suspend, not > >> instead of it. It is also unclear if our user-space code could easily > >> make use of it since our trusted code calls into untrusted code. > >> > > > > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but suspend and the cgroup freezer > > interoperate well today -- you don't have to choose one or the other. > > If you've discovered otherwise I'd consider it a bug and would like to > > hear more about it. > > > > I'm not aware of any bug with combining both, but we cannot use > suspend at all without suspend blockers in the kernel (since wakeup > events may be ignored) The more I think of it, the more it appears to me that the problem of lost wakeup events can actually be solved without suspend blockers. I'll send a bunch of patches to address this issue, probably tomorrow. > and I don't know how we can safely freeze > cgroups without funneling all potential wakeup events through a > process that never gets frozen. If your untrusted apps get called by the trusted ones, they aren't really untrusted in the first place. >From what you're saying it follows that you're not really willing to accept any solution different to your suspend blockers. Is that really the case? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/