[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527192135.6c6543b3@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:21:35 +0200
From: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
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, 27 May 2010 18:45:25 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> The whole notion of treating suspend to RAM any different than a plain
> idle C-State is wrong. It's not different at all. You just use a
> different mechanism which has longer takedown and wakeup latencies and
> requires to shut down stuff and setup extra wakeup sources.
>
> And there is the whole problem. Switching from normal event delivery
> to those special wakeup sources. That needs to be engineered in any
> case carefuly and it does not matter whether you add suspend blockers
> or not.
Ok, I just don't know the answer: How is it just another idle state if
the userspace gets frozen? Doesn't that bork the whole transition and
you need a userspace<->kernel synchronisation point to not loose events?
Cheers,
Flo
--
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