On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 02:29:24PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 22:24 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > I was more thinking about something new, that isn't freezing anything. > > > The only purpose would be to group the stuff that CPUidle can ignore, > > > and let CPUidle ignore it, so that the system can still be idled. > > > > So they'd be on the runqeue but wouldn't factor into cpuidle's > > calculations of when the next wakeup should be? Ok. I think that still > > leaves you with the same problem - you're not scheduling that task, so > > how do you know to execute it when a network packet is received? I think > > you also still have the race condition. > > Couldn't you special case the network packet situation ? Like the idle > loop could take into account that there are packets flowing through the > networking stack that may need to get handled. And once you've done that for every wakeup source you have something that looks pretty much like suspend blockers. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
