[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1275049836.1645.1.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:30:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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 Fri, 2010-05-28 at 13:21 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> [Total kernel changes
>
> Ability to mark/unmark a scheduler control group as outside of
> some parts of idle consideration. Generically useful and
> localised. Group latency will do most jobs fine (Zygo is correct
> it can't solve his backup case elegantly I think)
>
> Test in the idling logic to distinguish the case and only needed
> for a single Android specific power module. Generically useful
> and localised]
I really don't like this..
Why can't we go with the previously suggested: make bad apps block on
QoS resources or send SIGXCPU, SIGSTOP, SIGTERM and eventually SIGKILL?
--
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