[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005272015360.3032@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 20:18:49 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
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)
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 06:49:18PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > ACPI provides no guarantees about what level of hardware functionality
> > > remains during S3. You don't have any useful ability to determine which
> > > events will generate wakeups. And from a purely practical point of view,
> > > since the latency is in the range of seconds, you'll never have a low
> > > enough wakeup rate to hit it.
> >
> > 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.
How does that solve the problems you mentioned above ? Wakeup
guarantees, latencies ...
It's not a prove of the technical correctness of the approach if it
can provide a useless functionality.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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