[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527190515.08be091a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:05:15 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.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 18:40:19 +0100
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:34:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > we still need to be able to enter suspend while the system isn't idle.
> >
> > _WHY_!?
>
> Because if I'm running a kernel build in a tmpfs and I hit the sleep
> key, I need to go to sleep. Blocking processes on driver access isn't
> sufficient.
Suspend as an idle state
Suspend as a 'hand of God' choice.
One is a performance optimisation the other is an operator executive
decision.
I'd prefer we avoided mixing them up. Everyone seems fairly happy with
the current operator ordered suspend behaviour I believe ?
--
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