lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
    Date
    On Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
    > 2010/5/30 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>:
    ...
    >
    > I think it makes more sense to block suspend while wakeup events are
    > pending than blocking it everywhere timers are used by code that could
    > be called while handling wakeup events or other critical work. Also,
    > even if you did block suspend everywhere timers where used you still
    > have the race where a wakeup interrupt happens right after you decided
    > to suspend. In other words, you still need to block suspend in all the
    > same places as with the current opportunistic suspend code, so what is
    > the benefit of delaying suspend until idle?

    Assume for a while that you don't use suspend blockers, OK? I realize you
    think that anything else doesn't make sense, but evidently some other people
    have that opinion about suspend blockers.

    Now, under that assumption, I think it _generally_ is reasonable to make the
    system go into full suspend if everything (ie. CPUs and I/O) has been idle
    for sufficiently long time and there are no QoS requirements that aren't
    compatible with full system suspend.

    Rafael
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-31 23:49    [W:4.140 / U:0.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site