On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> > 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. :-) >> >> Fair enough. Let's agree on a non ambigous terminology then: >> >> forced: >> >> suspend which you enforce via user interaction, which >> also implies that you risk losing wakeups depending on >> the hardware properties > > OK > >> opportunistic: >> >> suspend driven from the idle context, which guarantees to >> not lose wakeups. Provided only when the hardware does >> provide the necessary capabilities. > > I can accept that definition, but this is not what "opportunistic" means in the Is there a difference between this new definition of opportunistic and idle? I assume suspend here means low a low power sleep state since it is impossible to initiate and abort Linux suspend from idle since initiating suspend will cause the system to become not idle. > Arve's changelogs. What it means there is that he wants the system to suspend > even when it is not technically idle (like in the updatedb example I gave in a > previous message). Suspend blockers are supposed to be a mechanism by which > the kernel and user space together may determine when to suspend (and it's > somewhat orthogonal to idle). > -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
