2010/5/28 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: > On Friday 28 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Florian Mickler <florian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, 27 May 2010 20:05:39 +0200 (CEST) >> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ... >> > To integrate this with the current way of doing things, i gathered it >> > needs to be implemented as an idle-state that does the suspend()-call? >> > >> >> I think it is better no not confuse this with idle. Since initiating >> suspend will cause the system to become not-idle, I don't think is is >> beneficial to initiate suspend from idle. > > It is, if the following two conditions hold simultaneously: > > (a) Doing full system suspend is ultimately going to bring you more energy > savings than the (presumably lowest) idle state you're currently in. > > (b) You anticipate that the system will stay idle for a considerably long time > such that it's worth suspending. > I still don't think this matters. If you are waiting for in interrupt that cannot wake you up from suspend, then idle is not an indicator that it is safe to enter suspend. I also don't think you can avoid any user-space suspend blockers by delaying suspend until the system goes idle since any page fault could cause it to go idle. Therefore I don't see a benefit in delaying suspend until idle when the last suspend blocker is released (it would only mask possible race conditions). -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
