Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.

[Arve Hjønnevåg]

2010/5/26 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 02:54 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are proposing that we use instead. Both
>> user-space and kernel code needs to block suspend. If we don't have
>> suspend blockers in the kernel then user-space needs to poll when a
>> driver blocks suspend by returning an error from its suspend hook.
>
> In particular I'm suggesting you ditch the /dev/suspend_block thing.
>
> With a single suspend manager process that manages the suspend state you
> can achieve the same goal.
>

Yes we don't need the /dev interface, but it is useful. Without it any
program that needs to block suspend has to make a blocking ipc call
into the suspend manager process. Android already does this for java
code, but system processes written in C block suspend directly with
the kernel since they cannot use the java APIs.

> When the suspend manager has a !0 busy-task count, it ensures the kernel
> won't auto-suspend, when it again reaches a 0 busy-task count, it
> re-instates the auto-suspend feature.
>
> That's pretty much what that device would do too.
>
> Ideally we would not do the auto-suspend thing at all and have
> runtime-PM improved. Not running apps when they expect to run is like
> the world turned upside down.
>
> 'Evil' apps could always report themselves as blocker anyway.
>

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/