On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 04:38:12PM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote: > On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:00:15 +0100 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: <snip> > > Well, quite frankly, I'm not going to take this patch unless it gets > > an ACK from the scheduler people (which I'm guessing is not going to > > happen before hell freezes over). > > > > IOW, please find a better way to address the issue at hand. > > > We do have a real need that there is no exist feature in the kernel can > provide solution for. You want ACK from scheduler people because it has > impact on disabling irq? or you think scheduler should be the one that > provide the solution. I did try cpu subsystem, but it seems to be > limited to RT and certain scheduling policy e.g. RR and FIFO. I agree with Rafael. I think the scheduler should provide the solution and it can be done via modifications to the cpu cgroup subsystem. Yes, it only has the shares and rt-related files *right now*. However, Kame replied earlier with a link to some patches for extending it that introduce files with similar (granted: not the same) semantics: http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2010-10/msg04335.html I think you could build on that and help push those patches towards mainline along with your enhancements for reducing wakeups rather than modify the freezer cgroup subsystem. Cheers, -Matt Helsley _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
