On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The whole notion of treating suspend to RAM any different than a plain > idle C-State is wrong. It's not different at all. You just use a > different mechanism which has longer takedown and wakeup latencies and > requires to shut down stuff and setup extra wakeup sources. This is where you are wrong. Maybe not wrong in principle, but wrong in practice -- the kernel's present suspend-to-RAM (or just "suspend") implementation is _very_ different from C-states (or just "idle"). The primary difference is that the kernel can be forced into suspend even when the system isn't idle. In particular, it may be in the middle of processing a potential wakeup event -- and the current design gives the PM core no way to know if that is so. This is a weakness that in-kernel suspend blockers fix. With C-states this can't happen. If the CPU goes into a deeper C-state then ipso facto it isn't busy processing anything, much less a wakeup event. Now maybe this difference is a bad thing, and the whole PM suspend/hibernate infrastructure should be rewritten. But the fact, remains, that's how it works now. And it can't be changed easily or quickly. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
