On Friday 27 February 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2009-02-27 15:22:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday 27 February 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > Then, the decision making logic will be able to use /sys/power/sleep whenever > > > > > > it wishes to and the kernel will be able to refuse to suspend if it's not > > > > > > desirable at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to be flexible enough to me. > > > > > > > > > > This seems flexible enough to avoid race conditions, but it forces the > > > > > user space power manager to poll when the kernel refuse suspend. > > > > > > > > And if the kernel is supposed to start automatic suspend, it has to monitor > > > > all of the wakelocks. IMO, it's better to allow the power manager to poll the > > > > kernel if it refuses to suspend. > > > > > > polling is evil -- it keeps CPU wake up => wastes power. > > > > > > Wakelocks done right are single atomic_t... and if you set it to 0, > > > you just unblock "sleeper" thread or something. Zero polling and very > > > simple... > > > > Except that you have to check all of the wakelocks periodically in a loop => > > polling. So? > > No. I want to have single atomic_t for all the wakelocks... at least > in non-debug version. Debug version will be slower. I believe you > originally suggested that. I did, but please don't call it "wakelocks". It's confusing. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
