[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:0.021 / U:13.972 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site