On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > Well, that's simply an application bug which sucks battery with or > >> > without suspend blockers. So it's unrelated to the freezing of > >> > untrusted apps while a trusted app still works in the background > >> > before allowing the machine to suspend. > >> > > >> > >> It is not unrelated if the trusted app has stopped working but still > >> blocks suspend. The battery drains when you combine them. > > > > What you are describing is a problem which is not solvable either way. > > If you take the lock and do not release it you're not going to > > suspend. I never claimed that any other mechanism resolves this. > > > Whether you claimed it or not, this is the only case where using > cgroups would have a significant power saving over what we get with > suspend. The trusted app is idle and the untrusted app is frozen, so > we enter a low power mode from idle. Nothing else was what I said and depending on the usage pattern this can be significant. Just you converted a perfectly sensible technical argument into a quibble about BUGs in applicatins which are not confinable by defintion. > > But this is not related to the fact that freezing crap while running a > > sane background task is going to save you power vs. an approach where > > running a sane background task allows crap to consume power unconfined > > until it is done. > > > If the task that is blocking suspend is using the cpu anyway, then the > bad app does not increase the power consumption nearly as much as if > the task that blocked suspend is idle. That's utter bullshit. If the app missed to release the supsend blocker then your crappy "while(1);" app is killing you in no time, while the same frozen crappy "while(1);" does no harm at all. Thanks, tglx
