2010/5/26 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 03:40 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >> 2010/5/26 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 03:25 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >> > >> >> and on systems where the >> >> same power state can be used from idle and suspend, we use suspend so >> >> we can stay in the low power state for minutes to hours instead of >> >> milliseconds to seconds. >> > >> > So don't you think working on making it possible for systems to be idle >> > _that_ long would improve things for everybody? as opposed to this >> > auto-suspend which only improves matters for those that (can) use it? >> >> I'm not preventing anyone from working on improving this. Currently >> both the kernel and our user-space code polls way too much. I don't >> think it is reasonable to demand that no one should run any user-space >> code with periodic timers when we have not even fixed the kernel to >> not do this. > > All I'm saying is that merging a stop-gap measure will decrease the > urgency and thus the time spend fixing the actual issues while adding > the burden of maintaining this stop-gap measure. > Fixing the actually issue means fixing all user-space code, and replacing most x86 hardware. I don't think keeping this feature out of the kernel will significantly accelerate this. -- Arve Hjønnevåg -- 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
