[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three
    On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Ted Ts'o <> wrote:
    > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 08:14:09PM -0700, wrote:
    >> 1. sleeping can't currently save as much power as suspending
    > No, I don't think that's the case at all.  The key thing here is that
    > *most* applications don't need to be modified to use suspend locks,
    > because even though they might be in an event loop, when the user user
    > turns off the display, the user generally doesn't want it doing things
    > on their behalf.

    You are overgeneralizing; there are many applications that run in the
    background, and you want to keep them running even when the display is

    You seen to be concentrating on UI-only applications, for those it's
    worth noting that Android provides separate mechanisms for power
    saving. Since Android doesn't have true multi-tasking, the
    applications must serialize their states so that the next time they
    are opened they seem to have not been closed. So, the current active
    UI application can be closed while turning off the display, and
    re-opened later.

    User-space suspend blockers are relevant for background services, and
    as it has been discussed before; suspend blockers (not activating
    them) might actually degrade power usage.

    Felipe Contreras
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-08 14:57    [W:0.021 / U:4.456 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site