[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0912192253200.6618-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:59:06 -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:
> So, seriously, do you think it makes sense to do asynchronous suspend at all?
> I'm asking, because we're likely to get into troubles like this during suspend
> for other kinds of devices too and without resolving them we won't get any
> significant speedup from asynchronous suspend.
>
> That said, to me it's definitely worth doing asynchronous resume with the
> "start asynch threads upfront" modification, as the results of the tests show
> that quite clearly. I hope you agree.
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.
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