[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch update] Re: [linux-pm] Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code)
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> Am Donnerstag, 11. Juni 2009 17:22:06 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > > Okay, I'll agree to that.  It should be made clear that a device which
> > > > is "suspended" according to this definition is not necessarily in a
> > > > low-power state.  For example, before powering down the link to a disk
> > > > drive you might want the drive's suspend method to flush the drive's
> > > > cache, but it wouldn't have to spin the drive down.
> > >
> > > This precludes handling busses that have low power states that are
> > > left automatically. If such links are stacked the management of
> > > acceptable latencies cannot be left to the busses.
> > > An actual example are the link states of USB 3.0
> >
> > I don't understand.  Can you explain more fully?
> I am talking about the U1 and U2 feature of USB 3.0.
> Or abstractly any power saving state that does autoresume in hardware.
> In these cases you know that you can enter a powersaving state that
> will add X latency.
> In terms of user space API we'll probably add a way for user space
> to specify how much latency may be added for power management's sake.
> If busses are stacked the "latency budget" has to be handled at core level.
> If furthermore states that allow IO but with additional latency are ignored,
> the budget will be calculated wrongly.

Okay, fine. What does this have to do with Rafael's work? Why does
setting the status to RPM_SUSPENDED even when a device is not in a
low-power state preclude handling buses that automatically change their
power state?

I don't see any connection between Rafael's work and managing
latencies, beyond the obvious fact that a device will have a higher
latency when it is suspended than when it isn't.

Alan Stern

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-11 20:39    [W:0.106 / U:4.740 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site