On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 23:06:08 -0700 (PDT) david@xxxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Florian Mickler wrote: > > > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 22:06:34 -0700 (PDT) > > david@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >> > >>> I'm a little worried that this whole "I need to block suspend" is > >>> temporary. Yes today there is silicon from ARM and Intel where suspend > >>> is a heavy operation, yet at the same time it's not all THAT heavy > >>> anymore.... at least on the Intel side it's good enough to use pretty > >>> much all the time (when the screen is off for now, but that's a memory > >>> controller issue more than anything else). I'm pretty sure the ARM guys > >>> will not be far behind. > >> > >> remember that this 'block suspend' is really 'block overriding the fact > >> that there are still runable processes and suspending anyway" > >> > >> having it labeled as 'suspend blocker' or even 'wakelock' makes it sound > >> as if it blocks any attempt to suspend, and I'm not sure that's what's > >> really intended. Itsounds like the normal syspend process would continue > >> to work, just this 'ignore if these other apps are busy' mode of operation > >> would not work. > >> > >> which makes me wonder, would it be possible to tell the normal idle > >> detection mechanism to ignore specific processes when deciding if it > >> should suspend or not? how about only considering processes in one cgroup > >> when deciding to suspend and ignoring all others? > >> > >> David Lang > > > > We then get again to the "runnable tasks" problem that was > > discussed earlier... the system get's "deadlock-prone" if a subset of > > tasks is not run. > > Interprocess dependencies are not so easy to get right in general. > > I'm not suggesting that you don't run the 'untrusted' tasks, just that you > don't consider them when deciding if the system can suspend or not. if the > system is awake, everything runs, if the system is idle (except for the > activity of the 'untrusted' tasks) you suspend normally. > > David Lang Ah, yes. Sorry. It's pretty early in the morning over here, I don't seem to have my eyes fully opened yet... A "ignore-these-processes" cgroup could probably work... It would have the advantage of not having to maintain a special purpose API.... Cheers, Flo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
