[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100507184621.GA25978@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 19:46:21 +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 Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:43:33AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com> [100507 11:23]:
> > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:01:52AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com> [100507 10:46]:
> > > > Effective power management in the face of real-world applications is a
> > > > reasonable usecase.
> > >
> > > Sure there's no easy solution to misbehaving apps.
> >
> > That's the point of the suspend blockers.
>
> To me it sounds like suspending the whole system to deal with
> some misbehaving apps is an overkill. Sounds like kill -STOP
> the misbehaving apps should do the trick?
Freezer cgroups would work better, but it doesn't really change the
point - if that application has an open network socket, how do you know
to resume that application when a packet comes in?
--
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