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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans