[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527182058.GL3543@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:20:58 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
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)
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:17:16PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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.
Not at all. The entire point of opportunistic suspend is that I don't
care is currently in TASK_RUNNABLE or has a timer that's due to expire
in 100msec - based on policy (through not having any held suspend
blockers), I'll go to sleep. That's easily possible on PCs.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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