On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 19:46 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:43:33AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> [100507 11:23]: > > > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:01:52AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > * Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> [100507 10:46]: > > > > > Effective power management in the face of real-world applications is a > > > > > reasonable usecase. > > > > > > > > Sure there's no easy solution to misbehaving apps. > > > > > > That's the point of the suspend blockers. > > > > To me it sounds like suspending the whole system to deal with > > some misbehaving apps is an overkill. Sounds like kill -STOP > > the misbehaving apps should do the trick? > > Freezer cgroups would work better, but it doesn't really change the > point - if that application has an open network socket, how do you know > to resume that application when a packet comes in? suspend blockers can get abused also .. I had my phone in my pocket and accidentally ran "Google Talk" or something. It must have kept the screen on or kept the phone from suspending, so the battery drained completely over the course of an hour or so. Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
