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

[Felipe Balbi]

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:04:24PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
> > >If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the
> > >comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread:
> > >
> > >	The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even
> > >	beneficial.
> >
> > I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let
> > the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I
> > need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency.
>
> Does this mean you believe "echo mem >/sys/power/state" is bad and
> should be removed?  Or "echo disk >/sys/power/state"?  They pay no
> attention to latencies or other requirements.

no, not at all. I think they are also really useful. But I also think 
in-kernel suspend blockers are unnecessary. I think runtime pm + cpuidle 
+ cpufreq is well enough for all cases. We just need to give those three 
information about desired latencies.

--
balbi

DefectiveByDesign.org
--
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/