[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    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean