lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
    On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 03:52:20PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > On Monday, August 02, 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 03:47:08PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > > > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:12:28 -0700
    > > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
    > ...
    > > > Another one: freezing whole cgroups..... we have that today. it
    > > > actually works quite well.... of course the hard part is the decision
    > > > what to put in which cgroup, and at what frequency and duration you let
    > > > cgroups run.
    > >
    > > Indeed, the Android guys seemed to be quite excited by cgroup freezing
    > > until they thought about the application-classification problem.
    > > Seems like it should be easy for some types of applications, but I do
    > > admit that apps can have non-trivial and non-obvious dependencies.
    >
    > This isn't more difficult than deciding which applications will be allowed to
    > use wakelocks (in the wakelocks world). It actually seems to be pretty much
    > equivalent to me. :-)

    If I understand correctly, the problem they were concerned about was
    instead "given that a certain set of apps are permitted to use wakelocks,
    which of the other apps can safely be frozen when the display blanks
    itself."

    > > > on the suspend blockers for drivers; the linux device runtime PM is
    > > > effectively doing the same things; it allows drivers to suspend/resume
    > > > individually (with a very nice API/programming model I should say) based
    > > > on usage. And it works on a tree level, so that it's relatively easy
    > > > to do things like "I want to go to <this magic deep idle state>, but
    > > > only if <this set of devices is suspended already>". This is obviously
    > > > an important functionality for all low power devices, ARM or x86.
    > > > Suspend blockers had this functionality as part of what it did (they do
    > > > more obviously) but I'd wager that the current Linux infrastructure is
    > > > outright nicer.
    > >
    > > This is what Rafael has been working on?
    >
    > If you mean the runtime PM framework, then yes, I've been working on it.
    >
    > > Of course, the Android guys also want to pay attention to which apps
    > > are running as well as to the state of devices on the system.
    >
    > In fact the runtime PM framework is also important to Android, because it
    > can be used in there, for example, to implement the "early suspend" thing
    > I referred to in one of my previous messages in this thread.

    Now we just need to convince the Android guys of that. ;-)

    Thanx, Paul


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-02 22:39    [W:0.041 / U:31.168 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site