On Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > 2010/5/30 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: ... > > I think it makes more sense to block suspend while wakeup events are > pending than blocking it everywhere timers are used by code that could > be called while handling wakeup events or other critical work. Also, > even if you did block suspend everywhere timers where used you still > have the race where a wakeup interrupt happens right after you decided > to suspend. In other words, you still need to block suspend in all the > same places as with the current opportunistic suspend code, so what is > the benefit of delaying suspend until idle? Assume for a while that you don't use suspend blockers, OK? I realize you think that anything else doesn't make sense, but evidently some other people have that opinion about suspend blockers. Now, under that assumption, I think it _generally_ is reasonable to make the system go into full suspend if everything (ie. CPUs and I/O) has been idle for sufficiently long time and there are no QoS requirements that aren't compatible with full system suspend. Rafael -- 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
