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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:14 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 19:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 11:54 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Given that I'm in the latter category, I think suspend blockers is a
> > > reasonable solution to an existing problem.  I like Alan's idea of
> > > restricting the API into a single user space program so we contain the
> > > API contamination ... but realistically that's mostly the current
> > > suspend blockers anyway. 
> > 
> > There's a _large_ difference between resource limits and these wonky
> > suspend blockers.
> 
> Well, you have policy and then you have implementation ... suspend
> blockers just looks like an implementation to me.  It seems to be
> reasonably well suited in that regard ... after all, we kill processes
> that exhaust memory for instance or cut off write privileges to those
> that go over quota.  Preventing power hungry processes from consuming
> power by not allowing them to run until there's a wakeup event is fairly
> gentle by those standards.

The difference is that the limit should be per task. In this model a
process that only runs a little still gets suspended.

> > The main and most important one being that suspend is a global property
> > and can/will hurt sensible tasks. It puts the whole task model upside
> > down.
> 
> OK, so I believe you have an android phone ... it already implements
> this model ... specifically what are the problems on that platform this
> causes?

I do not have one, nor have I ever written an application for it (nor
will I likely ever do that, since I detest Java), but I would expect an
application to run when its runnable.

--
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/