On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:30:36 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 13:21 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > [Total kernel changes > > > > Ability to mark/unmark a scheduler control group as outside of > > some parts of idle consideration. Generically useful and > > localised. Group latency will do most jobs fine (Zygo is correct > > it can't solve his backup case elegantly I think) > > > > Test in the idling logic to distinguish the case and only needed > > for a single Android specific power module. Generically useful > > and localised] > > I really don't like this.. > > Why can't we go with the previously suggested: make bad apps block on > QoS resources or send SIGXCPU, SIGSTOP, SIGTERM and eventually SIGKILL Ok. Are you happy with the QoS being attached to a scheduler control group and the use of them to figure out what is what ? _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
