lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 7)
From
2010/5/18 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>:
> 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.
>

My point is that the delay will not be used at all if the driver uses
a suspend blocker (like it should). Why add a configuration option for
opportunistic suspend that only works when the driver does not support
opportunistic suspend.

--
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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 01:09    [W:0.097 / U:11.752 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site