On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 16:41 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:35 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 04:28:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:06 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > one way which indicates to the scheduler that tasks in TASK_RUNNING > > > > should be scheduled, and when the session is idle we set the flag the > > > > other way and all processes in that cgroup get shifted to > > > > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or something. > > > > > > What's wrong with simply making the phone beep loudly and displaying: > > > bouncing cows is preventing your phone from sleeping! > > > > Well, primarily that it's possible to design an implementation where it > > *doesn't* prevent your phone froms sleeping, but also because a given > > application may justifiably be preventing your phone from sleeping for a > > short while. What threshold do you use to determine the difference? > > Whatever you want, why would the kernel care? > > You can create a whole resource management layer in userspace, with > different privilidge/trust levels. Trusted apps may wake more than > untrusted apps. Who cares. > > The thing is, you can easily detect what keeps your cpu from idling. > What you do about it a pure userspace solution. > > You can use the QoS stuff to give hints, like don't wake me more than 5 > times a minute, if with those hints an app still doesn't meet whatever > criteria are suitable for the current mode, yell at it. Or adjust its > QoS parameters for it. > > Heck, for all I care, simply SIGKILL the thing and report it once the > user starts looking at his screen again. Provide incentive for Joe Clicker to improve his app, instead of cope with the shit he created. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
