[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0912201210300.24162-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:12:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async
suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > It's too early to come to this sort of conclusion (i.e., that suspend
> > and resume react very differently to an asynchronous approach). Unless
> > you have some definite _reason_ for thinking that resume will benefit
> > more than suspend, you shouldn't try to generalize so much from tests
> > on only two systems.
>
> In fact I have one reason. Namely, the things that drivers do on suspend and
> resume are evidently quite different and on these two systems I was able to
> test they apparently took different amounts of time to complete.
>
> The very fact that on both systems resume is substantially longer than suspend,
> even if all devices are suspended and resumed synchronously, is quite
> interesting.
Yes, it is. But it doesn't mean that suspend won't benefit from
asynchronicity; it just means that the benefits might not be as large
as they are for resume.
Alan Stern
--
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