[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
    2010/5/26 Peter Zijlstra <>:
    > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 03:40 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
    >> 2010/5/26 Peter Zijlstra <>:
    >> > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 03:25 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> and on systems where the
    >> >> same power state can be used from idle and suspend, we use suspend so
    >> >> we can stay in the low power state for minutes to hours instead of
    >> >> milliseconds to seconds.
    >> >
    >> > So don't you think working on making it possible for systems to be idle
    >> > _that_ long would improve things for everybody? as opposed to this
    >> > auto-suspend which only improves matters for those that (can) use it?
    >> I'm not preventing anyone from working on improving this. Currently
    >> both the kernel and our user-space code polls way too much. I don't
    >> think it is reasonable to demand that no one should run any user-space
    >> code with periodic timers when we have not even fixed the kernel to
    >> not do this.
    > All I'm saying is that merging a stop-gap measure will decrease the
    > urgency and thus the time spend fixing the actual issues while adding
    > the burden of maintaining this stop-gap measure.

    Fixing the actually issue means fixing all user-space code, and
    replacing most x86 hardware. I don't think keeping this feature out of
    the kernel will significantly accelerate this.

    Arve Hjønnevåg
    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 12:55    [W:0.038 / U:4.356 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site