On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:07 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:04:38PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > Sure, if you're not using opportunistic suspend then I don't think > > > there's any real need for the userspace side of this. The question is > > > how to implement something with the useful properties of opportunistic > > > suspend without without implementing something pretty much equivalent to > > > the userspace suspend blockers. I've sent another mail expressing why I > > > don't think your proposed QoS style behaviour provides that. > > > > Opportunistic suspend is just a deep idle state, nothing else. > > No. The useful property of opportunistic suspend is that nothing gets > scheduled. That's fundamentally different to a deep idle state. I think Alan and Thomas but certainly I am saying is that you can get to the same state without suspend. Either you suspend (forcefully don't schedule stuff), or you end up blocking all tasks on QoS/resource limits and end up with an idle system that goes into a deep idle state (aka suspend). So why isn't blocking every task on a QoS/resource good enough for you? -- 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
