Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 May 2010 11:40:53 +0200 | From | Florian Mickler <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) |
| |
On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:45:33 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 02:46 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday 22 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > > This patch series adds a suspend-block api that provides the same > > > functionality as the android wakelock api. This version adds a > > > delay before suspending again if no suspend blockers were used > > > during the last suspend attempt. > > > > Patches [1-6/8] applied to suspend-2.6/linux-next > > So you're going to merge this junk? > >
Yes. By now, everyone reading the posts should know all points. Raffael obviously was part of this discussion and came to the decision to merge it.
My take of the discussion: _IF_ you want to suspend aggressively, I don't see another way.
The thing is, this is a paradigm change. Suspend is not anymore controlled by userspace. In order to let userspace control/work with this scheme, it needs to know when a suspend will be successfull or poll:
1. kernel sees suspend may be possible on his side of things
2. kernel sends a message to userspace that i could be possibly possible to suspend, but it may well be that by the time userspace suspends it is not possible anymore
3. userspace decides to suspend.
<- system suspends... or not ..->
4. userspace retries ... retries ... retries ...
And then you have the whole can of worms and races.
Or you have the suspend-blocker scheme:
1. kernel sees suspend is possible. 2. kernel suspends. 3. bingo.
Cheers, Flo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |