Hi Alan, On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > At the moment, isn't it possible for the userspace ioctl PM interface to > freeze processes without going all the way through to a system sleep? Something like cgroup_freezer is probably more useful, since it can freeze a configurable subset of processes. Consider the common mobile use-case of audio playback while the display, touchscreen, etc. are disabled. In such a case, large portions of userspace can be frozen or paused, but not all. > > But suspend users don't know this either, since they can't predict when > > the next external wakeup can happen. > > But they do know (or should know) that they don't intend to use the > system in the near future. It might be good to have a separate way to > express that idea to the kernel. Are you thinking of the current userspace interfaces to suspend, or something else? > > > and (2) that it is supposed to ignore wakeup signals from certain > > > sources. > > > > Isn't this configurable now without system suspend with the wakeup sources > > code? > > The wakeup code does two things: It tells the system which devices > should be enabled for wakeup when the system sleeps (as opposed to > cpuidle, when all devices should be able to generate interrupts), Perhaps the same interface would be useful for CPUIdle-based approaches. > > The individual components of system suspend are definitely useful: > > > > 1. preventing userspace processes from keeping the system from entering > > idle > > 2. preventing userspace processes from waking the system back up > > It's not clear what this means. How can a user process wake the system > up? Are you referring to user timers? Yes. > > 3. preventing kernel code from keeping the system from entering idle > > Relatively few kernel threads are freezable. The ones that are tend to > be involved in device management. Did you have something specific in > mind? No, nothing specific. > > 4. preventing kernel code from waking the system back up > > 5. requesting that drivers abort what they are currently doing > > Not exactly "abort". More like "stop processing their I/O queues". Yes, that's a better way of putting it; hopefully most drivers are doing that. - Paul _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
