On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 19:42 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > > The main and most important one being that suspend is a global property > > > > > and can/will hurt sensible tasks. It puts the whole task model upside > > > > > down. > > > > > > > > OK, so I believe you have an android phone ... it already implements > > > > this model ... specifically what are the problems on that platform this > > > > causes? > > > > > > I do not have one, nor have I ever written an application for it (nor > > > will I likely ever do that, since I detest Java), but I would expect an > > > application to run when its runnable. > > > > OK, so I've got one ... tell me what I should see and I'll try to > > reproduce. > > Umm... try to boot ordinary distro and see how it copes with > opportunistic suspend? That's not really going to help, is it? The issue I was curious are what are the bad things that result from interfering with the regular scheduling of processes ... because undeniably suspend (whether opportunistic or ordinary) does produce this interference. I could boot debian on an android and have it suspend ... that's still not going to answer my question. > I do have android here, and of course it work well with custom > userland. Question is: can common distro be reasonably modified to > work with suspend blockers, in a way that's backward compatible? You mean how an app could run if it was compiled with suspend blockers but the platform doesn't support it? That's a simple runtime switch in the library surely? James -- 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
