On Monday 09 February 2009, Uli Luckas wrote: > On Monday 09 February 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday 08 February 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > Being in suspend, where periodic user and kernel timers aren't running, > > > > and random userspace threads aren't possibly spinning, rather than just > > > > being in idle in the lowest power possible state, represent a pretty > > > > significant power savings. > > > > > > If kernel timers fire too often, fix them. If user land spins, fix it, > > > or SIGSTOP. > > > > > > And yes, autosleep is useful. That's why I done those "sleepy linux" > > > patches. > > > > I agree, it is. Still, I don't think the wakelocks in the proposed form > > are the right way to implement it. > > > What do you think is the right approach then? That depend on whether or not you want user space processes to be able to prevent suspend from happening. If I didn't, I'd use a reference counter. If I did, I'd probably use a special per-task flag or something similar. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
