[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201005292212.36107.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 22:12:36 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
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 Saturday 29 May 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 23:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Consider updatedb or another file indexing ... thing on a laptop. I certainly
> > don't want anything like this to run and drain my battery, even if it has
> > already been started when the machine was on AC power. Now, of course,
> > I can kill it, but for that I need to notice that it's running and it presumably
> > might have done some job already and it would be wasteful to lose it.
> > It would be quite nice if that app was not regarded as runnable when the
> > system was on battery power.
>
> How will a ionice on steriods that will defer servicing IO when the IO
> system QoS limit doesn't meet the updatedb process's level is too low,
> not solve this?
>
> In that case the updatedb process will simply block on IO, will hence
> not be runnable and thus not drain your battery.
It will only work for apps that use I/O, but there may be purely CPU-bound
ones that need that kind of approach too.
--
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