On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 28 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote: >> > The approach with user space power manager suggested by Dmitry and Alan Stern >> > may work, but it still assumes some kind of suspend blockers to be present in >> > the kernel. If we reject that too, I wonder what approach Google is supposed >> > to use and still get the same battery life they get with suspend blockers. >> >> I'm getting less convinced it needs suspend blockers at all for this case, >> assuming that you are willing to have a policy that is based on >> >> - assuming apps play nicely >> - having the information to user space you need (who woke us, who blocked >> us, events) >> - dealing with offenders primarily from user space using that information >> >> I'm fairly happy about the following so far >> >> - we should have a common interface for seeing some pm events (like >> duh ?) but it does need careful thought so the watcher doesn't change >> the behaviour and break it. (Message "We are suspending", gosh someone >> is running to receive the message, resume being the obvious case) >> >> - Suspend is (for many platforms) just a cotinuation down the power >> chain. Demonstrated and implemented on ARM. Very much the direction of >> S0i1/S0i3 on x86 MID devices. Proved by the fact it has been done and >> made to work, and by reading the Moorestown PR. >> >> - Given a non forced (that is 'idle down') transition to a suspend level >> we can implement a 'suspend as idle' on many embedded platforms in a >> manner which is not racy at kernel level. Apparently implemented >> already on ARM >> >> - Given a non forced transition to such a suspend level and the reporting >> of certain events we can do a full user space managed graphical UI type >> environment policy in a race free fashion >> >> - With notification of who caused a resume and maybe a bit of other >> general stat gathering it is possible to identify and handle abuses of >> power resource. Proved by the fact we can do this with powertop but >> more elegance in the interfaces would be nice. >> >> I am not sure if a pm event is what is needed for this or a sum 'hardware >> triggered wake up' event. >> >> I accept that current ACPI based laptops probably couldn't make use of >> such a feature but I don't think this is important at the moment. > > No, it's not. > >> A resource constraint model might help further in the ACPI case. It's >> useful for other stuff but it might well be a distraction and >> implementation detail in terms of the basic question about what is needed >> for something like Android. >> >> At this point the input of the Android team and the Nokia people would >> be rather more useful to me. > > OK, I added Arve and Brian to the CC list. > Even if we used the proposed QoS replacement, are there suggestions on how to keep the cpu idle for longer than 2 seconds in Linux without using suspend? On a thread somewhere I had real world power numbers on a Motorola Droid idling (screen off) with and without suspend blockers. -- Mike > Thanks, > Rafael > _______________________________________________ > linux-pm mailing list > linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm > _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
