lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:59:02PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > ACPI provides no guarantees about what level of hardware functionality
> > remains during S3. You don't have any useful ability to determine which
> > events will generate wakeups. And from a purely practical point of view,
> > since the latency is in the range of seconds, you'll never have a low
> > enough wakeup rate to hit it.
>
> Right, it does not as of today. So we cannot use that on x86
> hardware. Fine. That does not prevent us to implement it for
> architectures which can do it. And if x86 comes to the point where it
> can handle it as well we're going to use it. Where is the problem ? If
> x86 cannot guarantee the wakeup sources it's not going to be used for
> such devices. The kernel just does not provide the service for it, so
> what ?

We were talking about PCs. Suspend-as-c-state is already implemented for
OMAP.

> So the only thing you are imposing to app writers is to use an
> interface which solves nothing and does not save you any power at
> all.

It's already been demonstrated that the Android approach saves power.

> Runnable tasks and QoS guarantees are the indicators whether you can
> go to opportunistic suspend or not. Everything else is just window
> dressing.

As I keep saying, this is all much less interesting if you don't care
about handling suboptimal applications. If you do care about them then
the Android approach works. Nobody has demonstrated a scheduler-based
one that does.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-27 20:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans