On Fri, 28 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote: > > I think Arve's concern was the representation of the "I care, but only > > a little" or "just low enough to ensure threads must run" level which > > is what suspend blockers would map to (low enough to ensure we > > shouldn't halt the world but not necessarily implying a hard latency > > constraint beyond that). > > That's why I suggested "manyana" (can't get accents for mañana in a > define) or perhaps "dreckly"[1]. They are both words that mean "at some > point" but in a very very vague and 'relax it'll happen eventually' sense. A USA-style equivalent phrase might be "Real Soon Now". Except that it conveys a strong implication that the event will never happen... > > That makes sense -- and as I've mentioned elsewhere, we're really not > > super picky about naming -- if it turns out that > > wakelocks/suspendblockers were shorthand for "request a qos constraint > > that ensures that threads are running", we'll be able to get things > > done just as well as we do now. > > Cool. I think they are or at least they are close enough that nobody will > notice the join ;) Why are suspend blockers needed if you're going to put all untrusted apps in a cgroup and freeze/stop them? Or is that not what you're planning to do? ALan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
