On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:23:03 +0100 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:18:49PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work > > > with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't > > > work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation. > > > > How does that solve the problems you mentioned above ? Wakeup > > guarantees, latencies ... > > Latency doesn't matter because we don't care when the next timer is due > to expire. In your specific current implementation. It matters a hell of a lot in most cases. Alan _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
