[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)

> I agree that the runtime scenario is a far more appealing one from an
> aesthetic standpoint, but so far we don't have a very compelling
> argument for dealing with the starting and stopping of userspace. The
> use-cases that Google have provided are valid and they have an
> implementation that addresses them, and while we're unable to provide an
> alternative that provides the same level of functionality I think we're
> in a poor position to prevent this from going in.


"We have this ugly code here, but it works and we don't have better
one, so lets merge it"?

I don't really like this line of reasoning. I would not want to judge
wakelocks here, but... "it works, merge it" should not be used as

And btw I do have wakelock-less implementation of autosleep, that only
sleeped the machine when nothing was ready to run. It was called
"sleepy linux". Should I dig it out?

Major difference was that it only sleeped the machine when it was
absolutely certain machine is idle and no timers are close to firing
-- needing elimination or at least markup of all short timers. It
erred on side of not sleeping the machine when it would break

Still I believe it is better design than wakelocks -- that need
markup/fixes to all places where machine must not sleep -- effectively
sleeping the machine too often than fixing stuff with wakelocks all
over kernel and userspace...

(cesky, pictures)

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-24 21:01    [W:0.279 / U:11.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site