Re: [PATCH] epoll: Add a flag, EPOLLWAKEUP, to prevent suspend while epoll events are ready

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 09:22:25PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 17, 2012, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@android.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > > >> On Monday, July 16, 2012, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > > >>> Arve, Rafael,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@android.com> wrote:
> > > >>> > When an epoll_event, that has the EPOLLWAKEUP flag set, is ready, a
> > > >>> > wakeup_source will be active to prevent suspend. This can be used to
> > > >>> > handle wakeup events from a driver that support poll, e.g. input, if
> > > >>> > that driver wakes up the waitqueue passed to epoll before allowing
> > > >>> > suspend.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It's late it the -rc series,
> > > >>
> > > >> Well, exactly. :-)
> > > 
> > > If someone had CCed linux-api@ along the way (as per
> > > Documentation/SubmitChecklist), it might have helped ;-)
> > 
> > Well, it still _is_ late.
> > 
> > > >>> but it strikes me that CAP_EPOLLWAKEUP is
> > > >>> a poor name for the capability that governs the use of EPOLLWAKEUP.
> > > >>> While on the one hand some capabilities are overloaded
> > > >>> (https://lwn.net/Articles/486306/), on the other hand we should avoid
> > > >>> adding individual capabilities for each new API feature (otherwise
> > > >>> capabilities become administratively unwieldy).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This capability is not really about "EPOLL". It's about the ability to
> > > >>> block system suspend. Therefore, IMO, a better name would be something
> > > >>> like: CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND. This name is better because there might be
> > > >>> some other API feature that is later added that also has the effect of
> > > >>> preventing system suspends, and we could reasonably govern that
> > > >>> feature with the same capability.
> > > >
> > > > We already have another api, "/sys/power/wake_lock", that allow
> > > > user-space to block suspend. Do we want to apply this capability that
> > > > api as well, or only to apis that do not have other ways to restrict
> > > > access?
> > > 
> > > Well, the question is: is there a governor on the use of
> > > /sys/power/wake_lock? It makes sense either they are both governed
> > > (preferably by the same mechanism, I would have thought), or neither
> > > is.
> > > 
> > > >>> Does that seem sensible to you? I can send a patch for the name change.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm not sure what Arve thinks about that, but I'd be fine with that.
> > > >>
> > > >> Arve, what do you think?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND is fine with me, but if it does not apply to the
> > > > sysfs interface, then the comment should probably mention this.
> > > 
> > > I've sent a patch, but omitted mention of API details in the comments.
> > > Maybe that can be changed afterward, when a decision has been reached
> > > about governing /sys/power/wake_lock.
> > 
> > I'm going to push your patch for v3.5, but then I'm considering the following
> > one for v3.6.  I wouldn't like to make more changes in v3.5-rc at this point,
> > if possible.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rafael
> > 
> > ---
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > Subject: PM / Sleep: Require CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND to use wake_lock/wake_unlock
> > 
> > Require processes wanting to use the wake_lock/wake_unlock sysfs
> > files to have the CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND capability, which also is
> > required for the eventpoll EPOLLWAKEUP flag to be effective, so that
> > all interfaces related to blocking autosleep depend on the same
> > capability.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> 
> Care to mark that for -stable as well?

I will.

Thanks,
Rafael