2010/5/28 Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> This is a much harder question to answer that what we need to use
>> opportunistic suspend. The question we ask is more like this: "Is all
>> important work complete?". In the simplest case these can be the same,
>
> I don't believe you can answer that question without telepathy and a
> crystal ball.
>
But we have answered this question.
> The application doesn't know because it has no idea how to balance
> conflicting resource demands or to infer the users requirements and
> wishes. Most apps will misbehave anyway.
>
> The OS doesn't know because it cannot tell what the app wants
>
> So at best you have a heuristic.
>
>> What happens if the user presses the button right before you set QoS
>> of 'user apps' to QS_NONE?
>
> Read down a paragraph.
>
>> To me it looks like this solution would result in this sequence which
>> may ignore the button press:
>> Button pushed
>> Button driver sets QoS of app it wakes to QS_ABOVESUSPEND
>> Set QoS of 'user apps' to QS_NONE
>>
>>
>> > That would I think solve the reliable wakeup case although
>> > drivers raising a QoS parameter is a bit unusual in the kernel.
>> > That would at least however be specific to a few Android drivers
>> > and maybe a tiny amount of shared driver stuff so probably not
>> > unacceptable. (wake_up_pri(&queue, priority); isn't going to
>> > kill anyone is it - especially if it usually ignores the
>> > priority argument)
>>
>> Why is "wake_up_pri(&queue, priority)" more acceptable than "suspend_block(..."?
>
> We keep it kernel side
> It expresses policy and wishes rather than enforcing a behaviour.
>
> What for example does "suspend_block" mean on a virtual machine ?
>
> I would prefer "priority" was some kind of resource constraint model
> instead but I'm just trying to think how to be absolutely minimally
> invasible at this point.
>
>> What happens if the button press happend before this line:
>> > count2 = tasks to QS_NONE | QS_NOTCHANGED
>> > Screen off
>> > Button Press
>> > task to QS_ABOVESUSPEND
>> > count = tasks that are QS_NOTCHANGED to QS_NONE
>> >
>> > if (count != count2) {
>> > Stuff happened ... rethink
>> > }
>> >
>> > That is still a bit weird and wonderful but all the logic is in the right
>> > places. The special magic remains in the Android policy code and in the
>> > kernel specifics for Android.
>> >
>> > Thoughts ?
>>
>> I don't think it works. Also, it does not seem much less invasive than
>> suspend blockers.
>
> "I don't think it works" isn't that helpful. I don't think it works
> because .. would help me a lot more.
Did you miss this:
>> What happens if the button press happend before this line:
>> > count2 = tasks to QS_NONE | QS_NOTCHANGED
As far as I can tell this is the same race I described where you just
told me to read down a paragraph.
--
Arve Hjønnevåg
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
