lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
    On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:23:03 +0100
    Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:

    > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:18:49PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
    > > > Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work
    > > > with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't
    > > > work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation.
    > >
    > > How does that solve the problems you mentioned above ? Wakeup
    > > guarantees, latencies ...
    >
    > Latency doesn't matter because we don't care when the next timer is due
    > to expire.

    In your specific current implementation. It matters a hell of a lot in
    most cases.

    Alan


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-27 21:55    [W:0.021 / U:30.492 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site