On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:16 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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. *blink*, do explain? Suppose X (or whatever windowing system) will block all clients that try to draw when you switch off your screen. How would we not wake them when we do turn the screen back on and start servicing the pending requests again? Pretty much the same for everything else, input events, WoL etc.. -- 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
