On Tuesday 18 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Monday 17 May 2010, Brian Swetland wrote: > >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Monday 17 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > >> >> > >> >> It should get out of that loop as soon as someone blocks suspend. If > >> >> someone is constantly aborting suspend without using a suspend blocker > >> >> it will be very inefficient, but it should still work. > >> > > >> > Well, the scenario I have in mind is the following. Someone wants to check > >> > the feature and simply writes "opportunistic" to /sys/power/policy and "mem" to > >> > /sys/power/state without any drivers or apps that use suspend blockers. > >> > > >> > How in that case is the system supposed to break out of the suspend-resume loop > >> > resulting from this? I don't see right now, because the main blocker is > >> > inactive, there are no other blockers that can be activated and it is next to > >> > impossible to write to /sys/power/state again. > >> > >> I guess we could set a flag when a suspend blocker is registered and > >> refuse to enter opportunistic mode if no blockers have ever been > >> registered. > >> > >> It does seem like extra effort to go through to handle a "don't do > >> that" type scenario (entering into opportunistic suspend without > >> anything that will prevent it). > > > > I agree, but I think it's necessary. We shouldn't add interfaces that hurt > > users if not used with care. > > > > I'm not sure this can be "fixed". Yes, it can, but perhaps a workaround would be sufficient (see below). > The user asked that the system to suspend whenever possible, which is what it > is doing. I don't think disabling opportunistic suspend if no suspend > blockers have been registered will work. As soon as we register a suspend > blocker we are back in the same situation. Not really, because the new suspend blocker is not added by the _framework_ _itself_. Now, to make it more "user-friendly", we can simply use queue_delayed_work() with a reasonable delay instead of queue_work() to queue the suspend work (the delay may be configurable via sysfs). Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
