From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, Pranav Prasad <pranavpp@google.com>
Cc: sboyd@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Kelly Rossmoyer <krossmo@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] alarmtimer: Expose information about next alarm to userspace via sysfs
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 20:38:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y1cldsgq.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANDhNCqyugdsais9bzaL8RxTxyBgme4W2ZdfayaS8HbqBHJraw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 18 2024 at 14:11, John Stultz wrote:
> I'm always a bit cautious when exposing stuff to userland,
> particularly if it's potentially racy as you mentioned in your
> description. One thought I had was might adding a similar check
> earlier in the suspend path on the kernel side provide similar benefit
> (without requiring userland changes)?
>
> Basically, if I understand the problem:
> echo mem > /sys/power/state
> <kernel goes through suspending everything>
> alarmtimer_suspend()
> if (next_alarm < TWO_SECONDS)
> return -EBUSY;
> <kernel has to resume everything, and all that time was wasted>
>
> So if instead we did:
> echo mem > /sys/power/state
> enter_state()
> if (alarmtimer_immenent())
> retrun -EBUSY
>
> So the kernel would come back much faster if the suspend was going to abort.
>
> I suspect you all have considered this already but wanted to
> understand what issues that approach has.
It has the same race issues as the user space readout has as far as I
understand and it's much simpler.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-19 19:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-18 18:14 [PATCH] alarmtimer: Expose information about next alarm to userspace via sysfs Pranav Prasad
2024-01-18 22:11 ` John Stultz
2024-01-19 19:38 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2024-01-19 23:09 ` Pranav Prasad
2024-01-20 10:48 ` kernel test robot
2024-01-21 20:07 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87y1cldsgq.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=krossmo@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pranavpp@google.com \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.