lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three
    On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 04:25:21AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
    > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney
    > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
    > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 03:28:00AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
    > >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Paul E. McKenney
    > >> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
    > >> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:18:51PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
    > >> >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Paul E. McKenney
    > >> >> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
    > >> >> > But wouldn't an office suite run as a power-oblivious application on an
    > >> >> > Android device?  After all, office applications do not need to run when
    > >> >> > the screen is turned off, so these the applications do not need to use
    > >> >> > suspend blockers.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Ideally the system would be suspended even when the screen is on. If
    > >> >> there are no "trusted" applications running at the same time, then
    > >> >> openoffice wouldn't load at all. Right?
    > >> >
    > >> > My understanding is that Android systems in fact do not suspend when
    > >> > the screen is on, and that most (perhaps all) other systems do not
    > >> > opportunistically suspend at all.  There has been some speculation about
    > >> > what a hypothetical Android having a non-volatile display might do,
    > >> > but as far as I know, this is just speculation.
    > >>
    > >> I have a desktop system in mind. If opportunistic suspend is only
    > >> triggered when the display is off, then it's no good for normal usage,
    > >> and therefore dynamic PC needs to get its act together... specially
    > >> for laptops.
    > >
    > > If I understand you correctly, you are saying that both opportunistic
    > > suspend and dynamic power control should be used together, with dynamic
    > > power control being used for short non-busy periods (as in between
    > > keystrokes) and opportunistic suspend being used for longer non-busy
    > > periods (as in while grabbing a coffee).  That combination of usage
    > > sounds promising to me.
    >
    > No. In the future x86 will be fixed, but for now let's imagine an ARM laptop.

    Hmmm... OK...

    > > That said, I don't know that anyone has really sat down and thought
    > > through how one might apply suspend blockers to a desktop system.
    > > I suspect that there are several ways to go about it.
    >
    > Think in terms of an ARM laptop. What good is opportunistic suspend if
    > it's not going to help when the laptop is being used?

    For when the laptop is not being used, presumably.

    Thanx, Paul
    --
    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: 2010-08-12 05:47    [W:4.157 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site