On Thursday 13 May 2010, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> [100513 14:16]: > > On Thursday 13 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 01:23:20PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > * Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> [100513 13:03]: > > > > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 01:00:04PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > At which point an application in a busy loop cripples you. > > > > > > > > Maybe you could deal with the misbehaving untrusted apps in the userspace > > > > by sending kill -STOP to them when the screen blanks? Then continue > > > > when some event wakes up the system again. > > > > > > And if that's the application that's listening to the network socket > > > that you want to get a wakeup event from? This problem is hard. I'd love > > > there to be an elegant solution based on using the scheduler, but I > > > really don't know what it is. > > > > I agree and I don't understand the problem that people have with the > > opportunistic suspend feature. > > It seems to be picking quite a few comments for one. > > > It solves a practical issue that _at_ _the_ _moment_ cannot be solved > > differently, while there's a growing number of out-of-tree drivers depending > > on this framework. We need those drivers in and because we don't have any > > viable alternative at hand, we have no good reason to reject it. > > Nothing is preventing merging the drivers can be merged without > these calls. And yet, there _is_ a growing nuber of drivers that don't get merge because of that. That's _reality_. Are you going to discuss with facts, or what? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
