[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1275070580.1645.379.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:16:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Zygo Blaxell <vger-linux-omap-esightcorp@...ltoo.hungrycats.org>
Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com>, tytso@....edu,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 13:27 -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> From my reading of this thread, there's a lot of overlap between
> suspendblockers and constraints. Many use cases are served equally
> well with one or the other,
If using suspend-blockers,
Please explain to me how:
- I will avoid the cpu going into some idle state for which the wakeup
latency is larger than my RT app fancies?
- to avoid some tasks from being serviced by the filesystems whilst
others are? (ionice on steroids).
- does my sporadic task (with strict bandwidth budget) not suffer
bandwidth inversion?
suspend blockers do a bit of each of that, but none of it in a usable
fashion.
--
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