[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
    On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:04:24PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
    >On Thu, 27 May 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote:
    >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
    >> >If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the
    >> >comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread:
    >> >
    >> > The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even
    >> > beneficial.
    >> I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let
    >> the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I
    >> need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency.
    >Does this mean you believe "echo mem >/sys/power/state" is bad and
    >should be removed? Or "echo disk >/sys/power/state"? They pay no
    >attention to latencies or other requirements.

    no, not at all. I think they are also really useful. But I also think
    in-kernel suspend blockers are unnecessary. I think runtime pm + cpuidle
    + cpufreq is well enough for all cases. We just need to give those three
    information about desired latencies.


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-27 19:19    [W:0.020 / U:18.900 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site