[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikJH=t-67TAeUjgWM1=B86ZKq1b1V4WKHHgrfuH@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 07:23:04 -0700
From: Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: david@...g.hm, "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,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 07:07:06AM -0700, david@...g.hm wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> You could think of them that way, but it's not the useful aspect of them
> - that much could be implemented entirely in userspace. Wakelocks
> provide a mechanism for userspace to ensure that it's handled all
> received events before a system suspend takes place.
For userspace or the kernel -- some events may not require userspace
intervention, but do require the kernel to stay awake long enough to
finish chewing on them. Say perhaps a wifi irq comes in, the wifi
driver/stack needs to process some beacon packets or whatnot.
Brian
--
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