[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: suspend blockers & Android integration
    On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
    > 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner <>:
    > >> > Well, that's simply an application bug which sucks battery with or
    > >> > without suspend blockers. So it's unrelated to the freezing of
    > >> > untrusted apps while a trusted app still works in the background
    > >> > before allowing the machine to suspend.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> It is not unrelated if the trusted app has stopped working but still
    > >> blocks suspend. The battery drains when you combine them.
    > >
    > > What you are describing is a problem which is not solvable either way.
    > > If you take the lock and do not release it you're not going to
    > > suspend. I never claimed that any other mechanism resolves this.
    > >
    > Whether you claimed it or not, this is the only case where using
    > cgroups would have a significant power saving over what we get with
    > suspend. The trusted app is idle and the untrusted app is frozen, so
    > we enter a low power mode from idle.

    Nothing else was what I said and depending on the usage pattern this
    can be significant. Just you converted a perfectly sensible technical
    argument into a quibble about BUGs in applicatins which are not
    confinable by defintion.

    > > But this is not related to the fact that freezing crap while running a
    > > sane background task is going to save you power vs. an approach where
    > > running a sane background task allows crap to consume power unconfined
    > > until it is done.
    > >
    > If the task that is blocking suspend is using the cpu anyway, then the
    > bad app does not increase the power consumption nearly as much as if
    > the task that blocked suspend is idle.

    That's utter bullshit. If the app missed to release the supsend
    blocker then your crappy "while(1);" app is killing you in no time,
    while the same frozen crappy "while(1);" does no harm at all.


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-06 02:23    [W:0.022 / U:2.524 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site