On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:45:33 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 02:46 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday 22 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > > This patch series adds a suspend-block api that provides the same > > > functionality as the android wakelock api. This version adds a > > > delay before suspending again if no suspend blockers were used > > > during the last suspend attempt. > > > > Patches [1-6/8] applied to suspend-2.6/linux-next > > So you're going to merge this junk? > > Yes. By now, everyone reading the posts should know all points. Raffael obviously was part of this discussion and came to the decision to merge it. My take of the discussion: _IF_ you want to suspend aggressively, I don't see another way. The thing is, this is a paradigm change. Suspend is not anymore controlled by userspace. In order to let userspace control/work with this scheme, it needs to know when a suspend will be successfull or poll: 1. kernel sees suspend may be possible on his side of things 2. kernel sends a message to userspace that i could be possibly possible to suspend, but it may well be that by the time userspace suspends it is not possible anymore 3. userspace decides to suspend. <- system suspends... or not ..-> 4. userspace retries ... retries ... retries ... And then you have the whole can of worms and races. Or you have the suspend-blocker scheme: 1. kernel sees suspend is possible. 2. kernel suspends. 3. bingo. Cheers, Flo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
