[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100513212556.GI3428@atomide.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 14:25:56 -0700
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
magnus.damm@...il.com, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Geoff Smith <geoffx.smith@...el.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Benoît Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)
* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> [100513 14:16]:
> On Thursday 13 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 01:23:20PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com> [100513 13:03]:
> > > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 01:00:04PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The system stays running because there's something to do. The system
> > > > > won't suspend until all the processors hit the kernel idle loop and
> > > > > the next_timer_interrupt_critical() returns nothing.
> > > >
> > > > At which point an application in a busy loop cripples you.
> > >
> > > Maybe you could deal with the misbehaving untrusted apps in the userspace
> > > by sending kill -STOP to them when the screen blanks? Then continue
> > > when some event wakes up the system again.
> >
> > And if that's the application that's listening to the network socket
> > that you want to get a wakeup event from? This problem is hard. I'd love
> > there to be an elegant solution based on using the scheduler, but I
> > really don't know what it is.
>
> I agree and I don't understand the problem that people have with the
> opportunistic suspend feature.
It seems to be picking quite a few comments for one.
> It solves a practical issue that _at_ _the_ _moment_ cannot be solved
> differently, while there's a growing number of out-of-tree drivers depending
> on this framework. We need those drivers in and because we don't have any
> viable alternative at hand, we have no good reason to reject it.
Nothing is preventing merging the drivers can be merged without
these calls.
Regards,
Tony
--
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