On Wed 2010-05-26 12:14:02, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 19:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 11:54 -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > Given that I'm in the latter category, I think suspend blockers is a > > > reasonable solution to an existing problem. I like Alan's idea of > > > restricting the API into a single user space program so we contain the > > > API contamination ... but realistically that's mostly the current > > > suspend blockers anyway. > > > > There's a _large_ difference between resource limits and these wonky > > suspend blockers. > > Well, you have policy and then you have implementation ... suspend > blockers just looks like an implementation to me. It seems to be > reasonably well suited in that regard ... after all, we kill processes > that exhaust memory for instance or cut off write privileges to those > that go over quota. Preventing power hungry processes from consuming > power by not allowing them to run until there's a wakeup event is fairly > gentle by those standards. Well, generic mechanism would stop processes when they run over something -- not arbitrarily link it to device wakeup. > > The main and most important one being that suspend is a global property > > and can/will hurt sensible tasks. It puts the whole task model upside > > down. > > OK, so I believe you have an android phone ... it already implements > this model ... specifically what are the problems on that platform this > causes? Besides that it is not linux system at all? Yes, with custom userspace it works extremely nicely. Had anyone even tried running oportunistic suspend on normal desktop? Pavel -- (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
