On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi! > >> I agree that the runtime scenario is a far more appealing one from an >> aesthetic standpoint, but so far we don't have a very compelling >> argument for dealing with the starting and stopping of userspace. The >> use-cases that Google have provided are valid and they have an >> implementation that addresses them, and while we're unable to provide an >> alternative that provides the same level of functionality I think we're >> in a poor position to prevent this from going in. > > Uhuh? > > "We have this ugly code here, but it works and we don't have better > one, so lets merge it"? > > I don't really like this line of reasoning. I would not want to judge > wakelocks here, but... "it works, merge it" should not be used as > argument. > > And btw I do have wakelock-less implementation of autosleep, that only > sleeped the machine when nothing was ready to run. It was called > "sleepy linux". Should I dig it out? > > Major difference was that it only sleeped the machine when it was > absolutely certain machine is idle and no timers are close to firing > -- needing elimination or at least markup of all short timers. It > erred on side of not sleeping the machine when it would break > something. > How did you handle external events that occur right after you decided to sleep? > Still I believe it is better design than wakelocks -- that need > markup/fixes to all places where machine must not sleep -- effectively > sleeping the machine too often than fixing stuff with wakelocks all > over kernel and userspace... -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
