[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:0.596 / U:0.760 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site