On Friday 28 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote: > 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. To clarify, I'm not suggesting to spread suspend blockers all over the universe. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
