[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100810181320.GA17472@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:13:20 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: david@...g.hm
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arve@...roid.com, pavel@....cz, florian@...kler.org, rjw@...k.pl,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, menage@...gle.com, david-b@...bell.net,
James.Bottomley@...e.de, arjan@...radead.org, swmike@....pp.se,
galibert@...ox.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:07:20AM -0700, david@...g.hm wrote:
> If the primary difference between sleep and suspend is not scheduling
> processes, instead of messing with oppurtinistic suspend/suspend
> blockers/wakelocks/etc, why not just 'temporarily' change the timer fuzz
> value to a very large value (say an hour). That would still let things
> like openoffice saves ahve a fair chance to trigger before the battery
> died completely, but would wake the system so infrequently that it will
> be effectivly the same as a full suspend.
Because it only affects processes that sleep. It's a question of how
much pathology you want to be able to tolerate.
--
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