Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:04:24PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote:

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
>If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the
>comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread:
>
>	The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even
>	beneficial.

I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let
the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I
need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency.

Does this mean you believe "echo mem >/sys/power/state" is bad and
should be removed?  Or "echo disk >/sys/power/state"?  They pay no
attention to latencies or other requirements.

no, not at all. I think they are also really useful. But I also think in-kernel suspend blockers are unnecessary. I think runtime pm + cpuidle + cpufreq is well enough for all cases. We just need to give those three information about desired latencies.

--
balbi

DefectiveByDesign.org
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Arm (vger)]     [ARM Kernel]     [ARM MSM]     [Linux Tegra]     [Linux WPAN Networking]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Maemo Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux