On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:13:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:07 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > 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? Because you may then block them in such a way that they never handle an event that should wake them. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
