On Thursday 27 May 2010, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 05:52:40PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > 2010/5/26 Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Wed, 26 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > > > > >> > I must be missing something. In Arve's patch 1/8, if the system is in > > >> > opportunistic suspend, and a wakeup event occurs but no suspend > > >> > blockers get enabled by the handler, what causes the system to go back > > >> > into suspend after the event is handled? Isn't that a loop of some > > >> > sort? > > >> > > > >> > > >> Yes it is a loop. I think what you are missing is that it only loops > > >> repeatedly if the driver that aborts suspend does not use a suspend > > >> blocker. > > > > > > You mean "the driver that handles the wakeup event". I was asking what > > > happened if suspend succeeded and then a wakeup occurred. But yes, if > > > a suspend blocker is used then its release causes another suspend > > > attempt, with no looping. > > > > > >> > And even if it isn't, so what? What's wrong with looping behavior? > > >> > > >> It is a significant power drain. > > > > > > Not in the situation I was discussing. > > > > > > > If you meant it spend most of the time suspended, then I agree. It > > only wastes power when a driver blocks suspend by returning an error > > from its suspend hook and we are forced to loop doing no useful work. > > > > If driver refuses to suspend that means there are events that need > processing. I fail to see why it would be called "looping doing no > useful work". I guess Arve meant the case of events that didn't propagate to user space. Rafael > > _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
