[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)
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:59 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:56:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > > If that's what you're aiming for then you don't need to block
> > > applications on hardware access because they should all already have
> > > idled themselves.
> >
> > Correct, a well behaved app would have. I thought we all agreed that
> > well behaved apps weren't the problem?
> Ok. So the existing badly-behaved application ignores your request and
> then gets blocked. And now it no longer responds to wakeup events.

It will, when it gets unblocked from whatever thing it got stuck on.

> So you penalise well-behaved applications without providing any benefits to
> badly-behaved ones.

Uhm, how again is blocking a badly behaved app causing harm to the well
behaved one?

The well behaved one didn't get blocked and still happily waiting (on
its own accord, in sys_poll() or something) for something to happen, if
it would get an event it'd be placed on the runqueue and do its thing.

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-27 20:09    [W:0.266 / U:3.788 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site