[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.
    On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 02:54 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
    > I'm not sure what you are proposing that we use instead. Both
    > user-space and kernel code needs to block suspend. If we don't have
    > suspend blockers in the kernel then user-space needs to poll when a
    > driver blocks suspend by returning an error from its suspend hook.

    In particular I'm suggesting you ditch the /dev/suspend_block thing.

    With a single suspend manager process that manages the suspend state you
    can achieve the same goal.

    When the suspend manager has a !0 busy-task count, it ensures the kernel
    won't auto-suspend, when it again reaches a 0 busy-task count, it
    re-instates the auto-suspend feature.

    That's pretty much what that device would do too.

    Ideally we would not do the auto-suspend thing at all and have
    runtime-PM improved. Not running apps when they expect to run is like
    the world turned upside down.

    'Evil' apps could always report themselves as blocker anyway.
    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: 2010-05-26 12:09    [W:0.020 / U:17.972 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site