[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090608151156.GA17805@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:11:56 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM:
Rearrange core suspend code)
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 05:06:03PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> But if you think that tracking the usage state of the hardware is
> 'complexity', then you very much dont know what you are talking
> about. The main task of the kernel is to track hardware usage and to
> abstract away the fact that the same hardware is used by multiple
> tasks, and to do it safely. It's what the kernel does all day.
What I'm saying is that you don't *know* what the usage state of the
hardware is, and in many cases you can't know. A given user may be happy
to sacrifice their SATA hotplug support. Another with identical hardware
may not. A given network application may be mission critical and
intolerant of the network interface being shut down. The same
application in a different context may not. We'd need to provide a
bewildering array of interfaces to distinguish between these situations,
and we'd be unable to turn on autosuspend until the entirity of
userspace had been ported to them.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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