[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100804204839.GA4743@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 21:48:39 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
florian@...kler.org, rjw@...k.pl, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
swetland@...gle.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:42:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> This came like a bit of a shock to me ("why do they make it so complex
> then"), but... it also means that as soon as you are able to stop
> "unwanted" processing, you can just leave normal cpuidle mechanisms to
> deal with the rest...
How do you differentiate between "unwanted" and "wanted" processing in
the same task in a race-free manner?
--
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