* Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [100513 14:36]: > On Thu, 13 May 2010, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > Well this is an interesting problem, and once solved will be handy > > for all kind of things. My worry is that if it's integrated in it's > > current form it will be totally out of control all over the place :( > > > > Still hoping we can come up with some clean way that avoid the patching > > all over the place part.. How about the following, can you please check > > if it would help with your example of guaranteed handling of event: > > > > 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. > > > > Now to me it sounds if your the input layer and userspace handle > > both grab the timers with the critical flags, it should be guaranteed > > that the events get handled before the system is suspended. > > Why do you want this to be tied to timers? Many of the events in > question are asynchronous with no specific timing relations. To me it seems that the non-timer related events can be dealt with toggling the opportunistic suspend idle flag in sysfs. That should depend on the device and use specific policy. Tony _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
