On Sat, 29 May 2010 20:12:14 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

quoted text
> On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 11:10 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Correct, I strongly oppose using suspend. Not running runnable tasks is
> > > not a sane solution.
> > 
> > Look, this is getting into the realms of a pointless semantic quibble.
> > The problem is that untrusted tasks need to be forcibly suspended when
> > they have no legitimate work to do and the user hasn't authorised them
> > to continue even if the scheduler sees them as runnable.  Whether that's
> > achieved by suspending the entire system or forcibly idling the tasks
> > (using blocking states or freezers or something) so the scheduler can
> > suspend from idle is something to be discussed,
> 
> So what happens if you task is CPU bound and gets suspended and is
> holding a resource (lock, whatever) that is required by someone else
> that didn't get suspended?
> 
> That's the classic inversion problem, and is caused by not running
> runnable tasks.

The trick with the approach currently discussed (i.e.
opportunistic suspend, if you missed it): We suspend the whole machine.

And I really think, this is the only way to do it. It is a big hammer,
shure. But if you can pull it of... 

quoted text
> 
> >  but the net result is
> > that we have to stop a certain set of tasks in such a way that they can
> > still receive certain external events ... semantically, this is
> > equivalent to not running runnable tasks in my book.
> 
> Why would be care about external events? Clearly these apps are ill
> behaved, otherwise they would have listened to the environment telling
> them to idle.
> 
> Why would you try to let buggy apps work as intended instead of break
> them as hard as possible? Such policy promotes crappy code since people
> get away with it.

If I have a simple shell script then I don't wanna jump through
hoops just to please your fragile kernel. 

And before you judge code that does not behave to work with YOUR buggy
kernel, i would think twice. This cuts both ways. Just because the
problem is too hard for you, this does not excuse forcing crappy
kernels on other people. 

I think you have a point in that it is _in general_ not easily
possible to solve. But for this case this is clearly a simple, to the
point and working solution for android based phones. 

"Der Wurm muss dem Fisch schmecken, nicht dem Angler." 

quoted text
> 
> >  (Perhaps this whole
> > thing is because the word runnable means different things ... I'm
> > thinking a task that would consume power ... are you thinking in the
> > scheduler R state?)
> 
> Clearly I mean TASK_RUNNABLE, if not that the scheduler doesn't care.
> 
> > Realistically, the main thing we need to do is stop timers posted
> > against the task (which is likely polling in a main loop, that being the
> > usual form of easy to write but power crazy app behaviour) from waking
> > the task and bringing the system out of suspend (whether from idle or
> > forced).
> 
> Sure, that same main loop will probably receive a message along the
> lines of, 'hey, screen is off, we ought to go sleep'. If after that it
> doesn't listen, and more serious messages don't get responded to, simply
> kill the thing.

I think this would be a possibility. And maybe even sane. But I also
think this has nothing to do with suspend_blockers. They block
suspend. You know?   

quoted text
> 
> Again, there is no reason what so ever to tolerate broken apps, it only
> promotes crappy apps.
> 

This simple doesn't solve the problem.

Cheers,
Flo 
--
unsubscribe notice
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/