On Friday 20 February 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Freitag 20 Februar 2009 11:46:55 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > > On Thursday 19 February 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag 19 Februar 2009 23:21:46 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > > > > > That's the whole point behind userspace wakelocks! They provide a > > > > > mechanism for userspace to tell the kernel when (as far as userspace > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > concerned) it is or is not okay to auto-sleep. > > > > > > > > Still, one can go further and observe that the user space can in fact > > > > start automatic suspend by itself whenever it knows it's appropriate > > > > ... > > > > > > User space initiating this is a race condition. > > > > Do you mean a race with the other user space processes or with the kernel? > > With the set of runnable processes.There's always a window between > evaluating the current set of runnable tasks and telling the kernel to sleep. > IMO the most elegant solution would be a task attribute that would signal > the kernel that a task should not count as keeping the system busy even > if it is runnable and trigger the sleep in kernel space. Please see my last reply to Arve (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/2/20/182) and tell me what you think. Best, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
