[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1005251501500.1634-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 15:05:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
cc: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...onice.net>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > What you describe can be done in userspace though, via a "suspend manager"
> > > process. Tasks reading input events will post "busy" events to stop the
> > > manager process from sending system into suspend. But this can be confined to
> > > Android userspace, leaving the kernel as is (well, kernel needs to be modified
> > > to not go into suspend with full queues, but that is using existing kernel
> > > APIs).
> >
> > I think that could be made to work. And it might remove the need for
> > the userspace suspend-blocker API, which would be an advantage. It
> > could even remove the need for the opportunistic-suspend workqueue --
> > opportunistic suspends would be initiated by the "suspend manager"
> > process instead of by the kernel.
> >
> > However you still have the issue of modifying the kernel drivers to
> > disallow opportunistic suspend if their queues are non-empty. Doing
> > that is more or less equivalent to implementing kernel-level suspend
> > blockers. (The suspend blocker approach is slightly more efficient,
> > because it will prevent a suspend from starting if a queue is
> > non-empty, instead of allowing the suspend to start and then aborting
> > it partway through.)
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something here... No doubt someone will point it out
> > if I am.
> >
>
> Well, from my perspective that would limit changes to the evdev driver
> (well, limited input core plumbing will be needed) but that is using the
> current PM infrastructure. The HW driver changes will be limited to what
> you described "type 2" in your other e-mail.
>
> Also, not suspending while events are in progress) is probably
> beneficial for platforms other than Android as well. So unless I am
> missing something this sounds like a win.
I agree that simplifying the user API would be an advantage. Instead
of the full-blown suspend-blocker interface, we would need only a way
to initiate an opportunistic suspend. For example:
echo opportunistic >/sys/power/state
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