On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 18:51 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 10:40:43AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 18:36 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > If your wakeup latencies are sufficiently low and you have fine-grained > > > enough control over your hardware then suspend in idle is a reasonable > > > thing to do - but if you have a userspace app that's spinning then > > > that doesn't solve the issue. > > > > If there's a userspace app spinning then you don't go idle (or that's my > > assumption anyway). You mean like repeatedly blocking and unblocking > > right? > > Right, that's the problem. idle-based suspend works fine if your > applications let the system go idle, but if your applications are > anything other than absolutely perfect in this respect then you consume > significant power even if the device is sitting unused in someone's > pocket. True .. I'd wonder how an OMAP based devices deal with that issue, since they would have that exact problem. According to what Tony is telling us. Actually a bogus userspace can do a lot more than just consume power you could hang the system too. Daniel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
