[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527191716.16b4a8e3@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:17:16 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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)
> > So PCs with current ACPI don't get opportunistic suspend capability. It
> > probably won't be supported on the Commodore Amiga either - your point ?
>
> Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work
> with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't
> work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation.
If one works so does the other.
> In some cases, not all. It may be a latency constraint (in which case
> pm_qos is an appropriate mechanism), but instead it may be something
> like "A key was pressed but never read" or "A network packet was
> received but not delivered". These don't fit into the pm_qos model, but
> it's state that you have to track.
I never mentioned pm_qos, just latency *and* knowing what suspend states
are acceptable. You need both.
Alan
--
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