On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:46:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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: > > > 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. If that's what you're aiming for then you don't need to block applications on hardware access because they should all already have idled themselves. > 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. That's more interesting, but you're changing semantics quite heavily at this point. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
