lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
    Date
    On Thursday 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > On Thu, 27 May 2010, 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
    >
    > mem should be replaced by an idle suspend to ram mechanism

    Well, what about when I want the machine to suspend _regardless_ of whether
    or not it's idle at the moment? That actually happens quite often to me. :-)

    > > attention to latencies or other requirements.
    >
    > s2disk is a totally different beast as it shuts down the box into the
    > complete power off state.

    I don't see much difference between that and ACPI S3 other than the memory
    contents are preserved in S3. It also is complete power off state - except for
    memory refresh and wakeup sources (which also may be active in S4).

    Rafael


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-27 23:17    [W:2.913 / U:0.244 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site