lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 7)
Date
On Wednesday 19 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/5/18 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>:
> > On Tuesday 18 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> 2010/5/18 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>:
> >> > On Tuesday 18 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >> >> > On Monday 17 May 2010, Brian Swetland wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Monday 17 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> > ...
> >>
> >> > Now, to make it more "user-friendly", we can simply use
> >> > queue_delayed_work() with a reasonable delay instead of queue_work() to queue
> >> > the suspend work (the delay may be configurable via sysfs).
> >> >
> >>
> >> I can add a delay (and the timeout support code does add a delay as an
> >> optimization) to the unknown wakeup case, but this does not fix the
> >> problem of a user turning on opportunistic suspend with a user space
> >> framework that does not use suspend blockers. If the kernel uses
> >> suspend blockers to make sure the wakeup event makes it to user space,
> >> but user space does not block suspend, then the system will suspend
> >> before the event is processed.
> >
> > But the user can still manually write to /sys/power/state. :-)
> >
>
> Does adding or removing a delay change this? It seems in only changes
> how quickly the user can finish that write.

Yes, but that should allow the user to avoid rebooting the system if he does
the "wrong thing".

> I'm not convinced adding a configurable delay here is necessary.

No, it's not, but it would be useful in some cases IMO. Pretty much the same
way your debug features are useful.

> Once the driver that enabled the wakeup event has been updated to block
> suspend until this event gets to user space, then this delay will
> never be triggered. The kernel cannot tell the difference between a
> user enabling opportunistic suspend but not wanting it and
> opportunistic suspend aware user space code deciding that this wakeup
> event should be ignored.

The point is, if there's a delay, it may be too aggressive for some users and
too conservative for some other users, so it makes sense to provide a means
to adjust it to the user's needs.

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: 2010-05-19 00:57    [W:0.079 / U:46.808 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site