[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527171644.GA2468@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 18:16:44 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
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 07:13:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:07 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > No. The useful property of opportunistic suspend is that nothing gets
> > scheduled. That's fundamentally different to a deep idle state.
>
> I think Alan and Thomas but certainly I am saying is that you can get to
> the same state without suspend.
>
> Either you suspend (forcefully don't schedule stuff), or you end up
> blocking all tasks on QoS/resource limits and end up with an idle system
> that goes into a deep idle state (aka suspend).
>
> So why isn't blocking every task on a QoS/resource good enough for you?
Because you may then block them in such a way that they never handle an
event that should wake them.
--
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