[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100811004415.GI2379@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:44:15 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>, david@...g.hm,
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 03:44:05PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Which reminds me. I forgot a very important way that user space signals
> the kernel as to its intents.
>
> The kernel can see whether code is sleeping by choice or sleeping because
> someone blocked it (eg a page fault). The kernel also knows a lot about
> the event being waited for (much more so in -rt than base).
>
> We don't capture all of that info but it seems it would advance progress
> in the right direction to do so better.
As one approach of many, this makes a great deal of sense.
Thanx, Paul
--
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