[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527170740.GA1980@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 18:07:40 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org, felipe.balbi@...ia.com,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:04:38PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Sure, if you're not using opportunistic suspend then I don't think
> > there's any real need for the userspace side of this. The question is
> > how to implement something with the useful properties of opportunistic
> > suspend without without implementing something pretty much equivalent to
> > the userspace suspend blockers. I've sent another mail expressing why I
> > don't think your proposed QoS style behaviour provides that.
>
> Opportunistic suspend is just a deep idle state, nothing else.
No. The useful property of opportunistic suspend is that nothing gets
scheduled. That's fundamentally different to a deep idle state.
> Stop thinking about suspend as a special mechanism. It's not - except
> for s2disk, which is an entirely different beast.
On PCs, suspend has more in common with s2disk than it does C states.
--
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