Re: suspend blockers & Android integration

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 05:47:10PM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> 2010/6/6 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > The difference between idle-based suspend and opportunistic suspend is
> > that the former will continue to wake up for timers and will never be
> > entered if something is using CPU, whereas the latter will be entered
> > whenever no suspend blocks are held. The problem with opportunistic
> > suspend is that you might make the decision to suspend simultaneusly
> > with a wakeup event being received. Suspend blocks facilitate
> > synchronisation between the kernel and userspace to ensure that all such
> > events have been consumed and handld appropriately.
> 
> Right, and then you start taking suspend blockers in kernel here and
> there which eventually interferes with runtime PM.

Suspend blocks prevent system suspend, not any per-device suspend.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux