* Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> [100513 12:49]: > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:42:05PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > 1. In the kernel, we add one more timer queue for critical timers. > > The current timer queue(s) stay as it is. > > > > 2. We allow selecting the timer based on some flag, the default > > behaviour being the current default timer queue. > > > > 3. Then we add next_timer_interupt_critical() to only query the > > critical timers along the lines of the current next_timer_interrupt(). > > > > 4. We implement a custom pm_idle that suspends the system based on > > some logic and checking if next_timer_interrupt_critical() is > > empty. If the next_timer_interrupt_critical() does not return > > anything, we assume it's OK to suspend the system. > > Ok. So we stick the untrusted bits of userspace on the critical timer > list. I guess you mean the trusted instead of untrusted apps in the userspace above, the ones that are critical to keep running. > Now we get a network packet that generates a wakeup event and gets > read by an application. What happens if that application can't fully > process the packet in a single timeslice? The system stays running because there's something to do. The system won't suspend until all the processors hit the kernel idle loop and the next_timer_interrupt_critical() returns nothing. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
