On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 02:41 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 01:38 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> > This of course will lead to a scattering of suspend blockers into any >> >> > drivers/subsystems considered "useful", which by looking through current >> >> > Android kernels is many of them. >> >> >> >> That depends on the maintainers of these subsystems, who still have the power >> >> to reject requested changes. >> > >> > So as a scheduler maintainer I'm going to merge a patch that does a >> > suspend_blocker when the runqueue's aren't empty... how about that? >> > >> >> I don't know if you are serious, since the all the runqueues are never >> empty while suspending, this would disable opportunistic suspend >> altogether. > > So why again was this such a great scheme? Go fix your userspace to not > not run when not needed. Thanks for your constructive feedback. Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
