On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:41 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:35:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:32 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:28:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Why would you care about the screen for a network event? > > > > > > Because the application that needs to handle the network packet is > > > currently blocked trying to draw something to the screen. > > > > Then that's an application bug right there, isn't it? > > > > If should have listened to the window server telling its clients it was > > going to go away. Drawing after you get that is your own damn fault ;-) > > How long do you wait for applications to respond that they've stopped > drawing? What if the application is heavily in swap at the time? Since we're talking about a purely idle driven power saving, we wait until the cpu is idle. Note that it doesn't need to broadcast this, it could opt to reply with that message on the first drawing attempt after it goes away and block on the second. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
