[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008050706170.25170@asgard.lang.hm>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 07:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: david@...g.hm
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pavel@....cz, florian@...kler.org, 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 Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 04:19:20PM -0700, david@...g.hm wrote:
>
>> only consider the activity of a subset of processes when deciding if we
>> should suspend or not. If the decision is to suspend, freeze everything.
>>
>> you (and many other people) are confusing what I've proposed (use cgroups
>> to indicate what processes to care about and what ones to not care about
>> when deciding to suspend/go to idle) with the prior cgroup proposal (use
>> cgroups to freeze a subset of tasks while leaving others runnable)
>
> The decision on whether or not to go to sleep isn't the difficult bit of
> this problem space.
but isn't that all that wakelocks do? affect the decision on whether or
not to go to sleep.
David Lang
--
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