Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)

[Matthew Garrett]

On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 09:40:26AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:

> In my view, the truly significant difference between suspend blockers
> and runtime PM is what happens to userspace.  So far, to me the only
> compelling argument for suspend blockers is the goal of forcibly
> shutting down userspace and thus forcing the system into idle
> (although drivers could still reject a suspend request.)

I'd say that this is certainly the main issue, though the remaining 
periodic timers in the kernel are also inconvenient.

> And if untrusted userspace apps remain as the major problem, maybe we
> should aim for a solution directly targetting that problem.  I'm just
> shooting from the hip now, but maybe containing (cgroups?) untrusted
> processes together into a set that could be frozen/idled so that runtime PM
> would be more effective would be a workable solution?

I considered this. The problem is that not all of your wakeup events 
pass through trusted code. Assume we've used a freezer cgroup and the 
applications are now frozen. One of them is blocking on a network 
socket. A packet arrives and triggers a wakeup of the hardware. How do 
we unfreeze the userspace app?

I agree that the runtime scenario is a far more appealing one from an 
aesthetic standpoint, but so far we don't have a very compelling 
argument for dealing with the starting and stopping of userspace. The 
use-cases that Google have provided are valid and they have an 
implementation that addresses them, and while we're unable to provide an 
alternative that provides the same level of functionality I think we're 
in a poor position to prevent this from going in.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/