lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
    From
    Date
    On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:35 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
    > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 04:28:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:06 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
    > > > one way which indicates to the scheduler that tasks in TASK_RUNNING
    > > > should be scheduled, and when the session is idle we set the flag the
    > > > other way and all processes in that cgroup get shifted to
    > > > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or something.
    > >
    > > What's wrong with simply making the phone beep loudly and displaying:
    > > bouncing cows is preventing your phone from sleeping!
    >
    > Well, primarily that it's possible to design an implementation where it
    > *doesn't* prevent your phone froms sleeping, but also because a given
    > application may justifiably be preventing your phone from sleeping for a
    > short while. What threshold do you use to determine the difference?

    Whatever you want, why would the kernel care?

    You can create a whole resource management layer in userspace, with
    different privilidge/trust levels. Trusted apps may wake more than
    untrusted apps. Who cares.

    The thing is, you can easily detect what keeps your cpu from idling.
    What you do about it a pure userspace solution.

    You can use the QoS stuff to give hints, like don't wake me more than 5
    times a minute, if with those hints an app still doesn't meet whatever
    criteria are suitable for the current mode, yell at it. Or adjust its
    QoS parameters for it.

    Heck, for all I care, simply SIGKILL the thing and report it once the
    user starts looking at his screen again.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-27 16:45    [W:0.021 / U:0.596 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site