Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> > The reason is simple: When a user process initiates an opportunistic
>> > suspend, you make it wait in an interruptible sleep until all the
>> > kernel suspend blockers are released.  No polling.  If another user
>> > thread decides in the meantime that it needs to block the suspend, it
>> > sends a signal to the power manager process.
>> >
>> > In fact, other threads should signal the power manager process whenever
>> > they want to block or unblock suspends.  That way the power manager
>> > process can spend all its time sleeping, without doing any polling.
>>
>> I still see an issue here.  Namely, if the power manager is in user space and
>> it's signaled to suspend, it has to ask the kernel to do that, presumably by
>> writing something to a sysfs file.  Then, if the kernel blocks the suspend, the
>> power manager waits until the block is released.  Now, it should go back and
>> check if user space still doesn't block suspend and if so, wait until the block
>> is released and start over.  With all suspend blockers in the kernel this
>> looping behavior is avoidable.
>
> I must be missing something.  In Arve's patch 1/8, if the system is in
> opportunistic suspend, and a wakeup event occurs but no suspend
> blockers get enabled by the handler, what causes the system to go back
> into suspend after the event is handled?  Isn't that a loop of some
> sort?
>

Yes it is a loop. I think what you are missing is that it only loops
repeatedly if the driver that aborts suspend does not use a suspend
blocker.

> And even if it isn't, so what?  What's wrong with looping behavior?

It is a significant power drain.

> Especially a loop that's as short as this one and spends almost all of
> its time sleeping.  Think how much harder it would be to write programs
> if you weren't allowed to use any loops.  :-)
>
> Alan Stern
>
>


-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux