* Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> [100507 12:01]: > On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 19:46 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:43:33AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > * Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> [100507 11:23]: > > > > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:01:52AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > * Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> [100507 10:46]: > > > > > > Effective power management in the face of real-world applications is a > > > > > > reasonable usecase. > > > > > > > > > > Sure there's no easy solution to misbehaving apps. > > > > > > > > That's the point of the suspend blockers. > > > > > > To me it sounds like suspending the whole system to deal with > > > some misbehaving apps is an overkill. Sounds like kill -STOP > > > the misbehaving apps should do the trick? > > > > Freezer cgroups would work better, but it doesn't really change the > > point - if that application has an open network socket, how do you know > > to resume that application when a packet comes in? No idea, but that still sounds a better situation to me than trying to deal with that for a suspended system! :) > suspend blockers can get abused also .. I had my phone in my pocket and > accidentally ran "Google Talk" or something. It must have kept the > screen on or kept the phone from suspending, so the battery drained > completely over the course of an hour or so. Yeah I guess there's nothing stopping that. Tony _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
