On Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > 2010/5/29 Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Sat, 29 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > > >> > In place of in-kernel suspend blockers, there will be a new type of QoS > >> > constraint -- call it QOS_EVENTUALLY. It's a very weak constraint, > >> > compatible with all cpuidle modes in which runnable threads are allowed > >> > to run (which is all of them), but not compatible with suspend. > >> > > >> This sound just like another API rename. It will work, but given that > >> suspend blockers was the name least objectionable last time around, > >> I'm not sure what this would solve. > > > > It's not just a rename. By changing this into a QoS constraint, we > > make it more generally useful. Instead of standing on its own, it > > becomes part of the PM-QOS framework. > > > > We cannot use the existing pm-qos framework. It is not safe to call > from atomic context. We've just merged a patch that fixed that if I'm not mistaken. Mark, did your PM QoS update fix that? > Also, it does not have any state constraints, so it iterates over every > registered constraint each time one of them changes. That's fixable IMO. > Nor does is currently provide any stats for debugging. That's why Alan is proposing to add that. > The original wakelock patchset supported a wakelock type so it could > be used to block more then suspend, but I had to remove this because > it "overlapped" with pm-qos. So, yes I do consider this just another > rename. It's an extension of an existing framework rather than an addition of a new one, with entirely new API and so on. Extending existing APIs is much preferred to adding new ones, in general. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
