On Wed, 26 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote: > > The power efficiency of a mobile device is depending on a sane overall > > software stack and not on the ability to mitigate crappy software in > > some obscure way which is prone to malfunction and disappoint users. > > Even if you believe the kernel should be containing junk the model that > works and is used for everything else is resource management. Not giving > various tasks the ability to override rules, otherwise you end up needing > suspend blocker blockers next week. We definitely will need them when we want to optimize the kernel resource management on a QoS based scheme, which is the only sensible way to go IMNSHO. > A model based on the idea that a task can set its desired wakeup > behaviour *subject to hard limits* (ie soft/hard process wakeup) works > both for the sane system where its elegantly managing hard RT, and for > the crud where you sandbox it to stop it making a nasty mess. Right, the base system can set sensible defaults for "verified" apps, which will work most of the time except for those which have special requirements and need a skilled coder anyway. And for the sandbox crud the sensible default can be "very long time" and allow the kernel to ignore them at will. > Do we even need a syscall or will adding RLIMIT_WAKEUP or similar do the > trick ? That might be a good starting point. Thanks, tglx -- 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
