* Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > ... > > ?- Controlled auto-suspend: drivers (such as input) could on wakeup > > ? automatically set the 'minimum wakeup latency' value of wakee tasks to a > > ? lower value. This automatically prevents another auto-suspend in the near > > ? future: up to the point the wakee task increases its latency (via the > > ? scheduler syscall) again and allows suspend again. > > > > How do you clear the latency value in a safe way? If another wakeup event > happens right after your wakee task is done processing the last event and > decides to increase its latency, auto suspend will be allowed even though > you have an unprocessed wakeup event. Also how do you know which task will > read the event if it is not already waiting for it? The easiest solution would be to not do any of that initially. (If it's ever a concern we could subtract/add without destroying the nesting property) Why do you need to track input wakeups? It's rather fragile and rather unnecessary - the idle drivers know it very well how to not go into the deepest idle mode already today. We wont hit C8 on laptops when you are using the desktop. > > ? This means there will be no surprise suspends for a task that may take a > > ? bit longer than usual to finish its work. [ Detail: this would only be done > > ? for tasks that have a non-default (non-infinity) task->latency value - to > > ? prevent the input driver from lowering latency values (and preventing > > ? future suspends) just because some unaware apps are running and using input > > ? drivers. ] > > Don't you need two inifinity values for this? Yes - any value above the max idle latency in the system will do. Thanks, Ingo -- 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
