[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [28]   [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, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > The two of you are talking at cross purposes. Thomas is referring to
> > > idle-based suspend and Matthew is talking about forced suspend.
> >
> > Yes, and forced suspend to disk is the same as force suspend to disk,
> > which has both nothing to do with sensible resource management.
> If I understand correctly, you are saying that all the untrusted
> applications should run with QoS(NONE). Then they could do whatever
> they wanted without causing any interference.
> And with idle-based power management (rather than forced suspend),
> there would be no issue with wakeup events getting unduly delayed.
> Unless one of those events was meant for an untrusted application. Is
> that the source of the difficulty?

Probably, but that's not solved by suspend blockers either as I
explained several times now. Because those untrusted apps either lack
blocker calls or are not allowed to use them, so the blocker does not
help for those either.



 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-28 10:29    [W:0.490 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site