Hi! > > There are several general problems with the design of opportunistic > > suspend and suspend-blocks. > > > > 1. The opportunistic suspend code bypasses existing Linux kernel code, > > such as timers and the scheduler, that indicates when code > > needs to run, and when the system is idle. > > Whoa! That's not my understanding at all. > > As I see it, opportunistic suspend doesn't bypass any code that isn't > already bypassed by the existing suspend code. Users can do > > echo mem >/sys/power/state > > whenever they want, without regard to kernel timers and the scheduler > (other than the fact that the user's thread must be running in order to > carry out the write, of course). Yep. And while I'm co-responsible for that interface, I would not call it exactly nice. Yes, it does the job. But imagine horrors atd/cron would have to do to work properly with that interface... setting rtc wakeups etc. So yes, mem > state already breaks promises, but lets not extend that. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
