On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:04:38PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Sure, if you're not using opportunistic suspend then I don't think > > there's any real need for the userspace side of this. The question is > > how to implement something with the useful properties of opportunistic > > suspend without without implementing something pretty much equivalent to > > the userspace suspend blockers. I've sent another mail expressing why I > > don't think your proposed QoS style behaviour provides that. > > Opportunistic suspend is just a deep idle state, nothing else. No. The useful property of opportunistic suspend is that nothing gets scheduled. That's fundamentally different to a deep idle state. > Stop thinking about suspend as a special mechanism. It's not - except > for s2disk, which is an entirely different beast. On PCs, suspend has more in common with s2disk than it does C states. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
