Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

[Matthew Garrett]

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:13:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:07 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > No. The useful property of opportunistic suspend is that nothing gets 
> > scheduled. That's fundamentally different to a deep idle state.
> 
> I think Alan and Thomas but certainly I am saying is that you can get to
> the same state without suspend.
> 
> Either you suspend (forcefully don't schedule stuff), or you end up
> blocking all tasks on QoS/resource limits and end up with an idle system
> that goes into a deep idle state (aka suspend).
>
> So why isn't blocking every task on a QoS/resource good enough for you?

Because you may then block them in such a way that they never handle an 
event that should wake them.
 
-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/