[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274983363.27810.5749.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 20:02:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
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, 2010-05-27 at 18:54 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:52:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > How so, event happens on hardware level, IRQ gets raised, CPU wakes up,
> > handler gets run, handler generates a task wakeup, runqueue isn't empty,
> > we run stuff.
>
> If you're using idle-based suspend without any forced idling or blocking
> of applications then you don't lose wakeups. People keep conflating
> separate issues.
I still don't see how blocking applications will cause missed wakeups in
anything but a buggy application at worst, and even those will
eventually get the event when they unblock.
What seems to be the confusion?
--
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