On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:17:58 +0100 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:06:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:59 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:56:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Correct, a well behaved app would have. I thought we all agreed that > > > > well behaved apps weren't the problem? > > > > > > Ok. So the existing badly-behaved application ignores your request and > > > then gets blocked. And now it no longer responds to wakeup events. > > > > It will, when it gets unblocked from whatever thing it got stuck on. > > It's blocked on the screen being turned off. It's supposed to be reading > a network packet. How does it ever get to reading the network packet? Thats a stupid argument. If you write broken code then it doesn't work. You know if I do ls < unopenedfifo it blocks too. There is a difference between dealing with apps that overconsume resources and arbitarily broken code (which your suspend blocker case doesn't fix either but makes worse). Can we stick to sane stuff ? _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
