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

[Florian Mickler]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:45:25 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The whole notion of treating suspend to RAM any different than a plain
> idle C-State is wrong. It's not different at all. You just use a
> different mechanism which has longer takedown and wakeup latencies and
> requires to shut down stuff and setup extra wakeup sources.
> 
> And there is the whole problem. Switching from normal event delivery
> to those special wakeup sources. That needs to be engineered in any
> case carefuly and it does not matter whether you add suspend blockers
> or not.

Ok, I just don't know the answer: How is it just another idle state if
the userspace gets frozen? Doesn't that bork the whole transition and
you need a userspace<->kernel synchronisation point to not loose events?

Cheers,
Flo
--
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/