On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:55:13 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 27 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > If one works so does the other. > > > > > > Not at all. The entire point of opportunistic suspend is that I don't > > > care is currently in TASK_RUNNABLE or has a timer that's due to expire > > > in 100msec - based on policy (through not having any held suspend > > > blockers), I'll go to sleep. That's easily possible on PCs. > > > > Yes I appreciate what suspend blockers are trying to do. Now how does > > that connect with my first sentence ? > > I guess what Matthew wanted to say was that you couldn't use ACPI S3 as > a very deep CPU idle state, because of the way wakeup sources are set up > for it, while you could use it for aggressive power management with suspend > blockers as proposed by Arve. Which is a nonsense. Because the entire Gnome desktop and KDE, and OpenOffice and Firefox and friends would need fitting out with suspend blockers. x86 hardware is moving to fix these problems (at least on handheld devices initially). Look up the C6 power idle, and S0i1 and S0i3 standby states. I reckon the laptop folks can probably get the hardware fixed well before anyone can convert the entire PC desktop to include blockers. Alan _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
