Hello Arve,
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
Sorry, I don't follow. What causes wakeup events to be lost? Is it the
current opportunistic suspend governor? On OMAP Linux systems, as far as
I know, we don't lose any wakeup events.
> > 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.
If, instead of the current Android opportunistic suspend governor, the
system entered suspend from pm_idle(), wouldn't that keep the system
running as long as there is work to done?
As far as I can see, it's the current Android opportunistic suspend
governor design in patch 1 that causes the system to enter suspend even
when there is work to be done, since it will try to suspend even when the
system is out of the idle loop.
- Paul
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
