[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4633F62A.2050801@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:34:34 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC: David Lang <david.lang@...italinsight.com>,
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2:
hang in atomic copy)
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:15:50PM -0700, David Lang wrote:
>> with dynaticks now in the kernel it may even be possible to have the idle
>> process decide that the next event is far enough away that it should
>> suspend-to-ram until that point.
>
> This would be ideal (and it's broadly what the OLPC guys are aiming for,
> I think), but on most platforms you're looking at at least a second or
> so to resume. As far as I know, we're still looking at ~60 ticks a
> second at best for an average desktop, so that's not going to be a win.
As long as the system has a clear idea of how long it will take to resume, it
can schedule a wakeup for a reasonable amount of time before that. Ideally, a
completely unused system might not need a tick for several seconds. However,
I agree that it doesn't make sense to add such functionality to the kernel
until someone can show a system that can actually wait that long between
ticks.
- Josh Triplett
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists