On Thursday 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote: > > > >If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the > > > >comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread: > > > > > > > > The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even > > > > beneficial. > > > > > > I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let > > > the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I > > > need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency. > > > > Does this mean you believe "echo mem >/sys/power/state" is bad and > > should be removed? Or "echo disk >/sys/power/state"? They pay no > > mem should be replaced by an idle suspend to ram mechanism Well, what about when I want the machine to suspend _regardless_ of whether or not it's idle at the moment? That actually happens quite often to me. :-) > > attention to latencies or other requirements. > > s2disk is a totally different beast as it shuts down the box into the > complete power off state. I don't see much difference between that and ACPI S3 other than the memory contents are preserved in S3. It also is complete power off state - except for memory refresh and wakeup sources (which also may be active in S4). Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
