On Fri, 14 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > On Mon, 3 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > > >> No, suspend blockers are mostly used to ensure wakeup events are not > >> ignored, and to ensure tasks triggered by these wakeup events > >> complete. > > > > Standard Linux systems don't need these, > > If you don't want to lose wakeup events they do. Standard Linux > systems support suspend, but since they usually don't have a lot of > wakeup events you don't run into a lot of problems. The primary client for opportunistic suspend and suspend blockers appears to be embedded systems. These systems are typically capable of powering the CPU down and up again with low latency, and they typically have very aggressive runtime PM support capable of powering down each device when it's not in active use. Given this ability, it does seem that opportunistic suspend and suspend blockers might be unnecessary. I'd like to explore this avenue a little farther. In particular, what is the issue involving loss of wakeup events? Can you describe this in more detail? > > because the scheduler just keeps > > the system running as long as there is work to be done. > > > > That is only true if you never use suspend. Why would you want to use system suspend if runtime PM can do everything you need? Sure, I can see that an ACPI-based system needs something more. But that's not the real issue here. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
