On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > The two of you are talking at cross purposes. Thomas is referring to > > > idle-based suspend and Matthew is talking about forced suspend. > > > > Yes, and forced suspend to disk is the same as force suspend to disk, > > which has both nothing to do with sensible resource management. > > If I understand correctly, you are saying that all the untrusted > applications should run with QoS(NONE). Then they could do whatever > they wanted without causing any interference. > > And with idle-based power management (rather than forced suspend), > there would be no issue with wakeup events getting unduly delayed. > > Unless one of those events was meant for an untrusted application. Is > that the source of the difficulty? Probably, but that's not solved by suspend blockers either as I explained several times now. Because those untrusted apps either lack blocker calls or are not allowed to use them, so the blocker does not help for those either. 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
