[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.
On Tuesday 25 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > So, basically, you'd prefer to move the entire complexity to user space.
> No, just the complexity of the userspace suspend blockers. That was
> one of the parts of the interface that people objected to, after all.
> > I'm not sure if that's a big win
> It's not a _big_ win, but it is an improvement IMO.
> > and I'm not sure anyone is actually going to
> > implement it (and some drivers would still have to be modified to participate
> > in this framework).
> Of course drivers have to be modified. The kernel-layer suspend
> blockers aren't affected by this proposal, so they still have to be
> implemented.
> > So again, we have a hunch that the goal may be achieved
> > in a different way, but at this point we'd rather need a _working_ _solution_
> > (in the form of code one can build and actually use).
> It's not very different from what has been submitted, and I think
> there's little doubt that it could be built and used fairly easily.
> All we're talking about is removing the userspace suspend-blocker API
> and the opportunistic workqueue, replacing them with an "opportunistic"
> entry in /sys/power/state, and setting up a userspace power manager
> process.
> > I don't think it's realistic to expect the Android people to go and redesign
> > their stuff along the lines you've described, because they have a working
> > implementation (in the kernel) that they are satisfied with.
> The redesign would be pretty small. The kernel changes relative to
> what they have submitted are minimal, mostly just removing a few of
> their additions. Furthermore, we've been told that Android _already_
> funnels all its userspace suspend-blocker work through a single
> process. All that would be needed would be to make that process
> initiate an opportunistic suspend whenever no userspace suspend
> blockers were active.
> > Now, we can reject their patches, but that's not going to cause any progress
> > to happen, realistically. Quite on the contrary, Android will continue to use
> > wakelocks and Android driver writers will continue to ignore the mainline
> > and the gap between the two kernel lines will only get wider and wider over
> > time.
> >
> > And what really is the drawback if we merge the patches? Quite frankly,
> > I don't see any.
> You don't seem to appreciate how small a change Dmitry has proposed.
> Almost all of the suspend-blocker work would remain as in the submitted
> patches. The only difference is that the userspace API and
> opportunistic-suspend implementation would be simplified, by moving
> some of the work out of the kernel.

No, I don't really think it's going to be a small change. The problem is that
for the Android people changing user space is very hard, so I don't think
this realy is an option, given that they would have to implement it themselves,
test it, validate it on multiple different hardware platforms etc. and _then_
resubmit the feature without any guarantee that it will be merged.

So, my opinion is that we only have a choice to either take the feature as is
now, or reject it altogether and live with the consequeces in each case. And
quite frankly I don't feel like I'm in position to make that decision.


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-25 23:45    [W:0.285 / U:7.404 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site