[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100813115751.3bbbafbd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:57:51 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>,
"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, david@...g.hm,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arve@...roid.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, 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
> > Think in terms of an ARM laptop. What good is opportunistic suspend if
> > it's not going to help when the laptop is being used?
>
> For when the laptop is not being used, presumably.
Or in time between keystrokes for most of the platform (backlight
excepted). The Intel MID x86 devices are at the point that suspend/resume
time on x86 is being hurt by the kernel rewriting smp alternatives as we
go from 2 processors live to 1 and back.
Alan
--
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