> I think you are missing the point. It works fine if the alarm caused > the wakeup, but if you had just used your system and your inactivity > timeout expired just as your alarm goes off, the alarm will not wake > the system, nor does it prevent it from suspending. As far as I can tell (and its an extremely hard situation to replicate), this is not true. My laptop sleeps and wakes straight back up. The following cannot occur on my laptop for simple idling Alarm Suspend because the Alarm resets the suspend timer when it is delivered. The wake pins and wake logic also ensure that the sequence Suspend Alarm always causes Suspend Alarm Suspend Finishes Resume > > If I suspend/resume my laptop every time I have a 30 second idle gap I > > will need a new laptop much sooner than makes me happy. > > > > Then don't set your inactivity timeout to 30 seconds. I don't see how > this is relevant. It's very relevant because it means that considering current laptops is not that important because they can't do this kind of fast sleep/wakeup > > I don't claim this is true for a typical mobile phone obviously. > > > The only difference on the phone is that we have way more wakeup > events which makes the race conditions more visible. The race exist on > your laptop as well. The number of events is I think only partly relevant. What matters is how long you wait between idle and suspending. The longer you wait the less potential you have to end up with an event successfully owned by an application you are not considering relevant to suspend. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
