[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100506184418.GA30669@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 19:44:18 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>, markgross@...gnar.org,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api.
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 11:33:35AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com> [100506 10:39]:
> > On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 10:38:08AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >
> > > If your userspace keeps polling and has runaway timers, then you
> > > could suspend it's parent process to idle the system?
> >
> > If your userspace is suspended, how does it process the events that
> > generated a system wakeup? If we had a good answer to that then suspend
> > blockers would be much less necessary.
>
> Well if your hardware runs off-while-idle or even just
> retention-while-idle, then the basic shell works just fine waking up
> every few seconds or so.
And the untrusted userspace code that's waiting for a network packet?
Adding a few seconds of latency isn't an option here.
--
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