* Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> [100507 14:34]: > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 02:25:56PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> [100507 13:58]: > > > Here's a different example. A process is waiting for a keypress, but > > > because it's badly written it's also drawing to the screen at 60 frames > > > per second and preventing the system from every going to idle. How do > > > you quiesce the system while still ensuring that the keypress will be > > > delivered to the application? > > > > I guess it depends. If it's a game and I'm waiting to hit the fire > > button, then I don't want the system to suspend! > > > > It's starting to sound like you're really using suspend blocks > > to "certify" that the app is safe to keep running. > > > > Maybe it could be done with some kind of process flag instead that > > would tell "this process is safe to keep running from timer point of view" > > and if that flag is not set, then assume it's OK to stop the process > > at any point? > > How do you know to wake the process up in response to the keypress? Does it matter for processes that are not "certified"? Maybe you could assume that you can keep it stopped until the screen is on again, or some other policy. Tony _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
