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

[Alan Cox]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:23:03 +0100
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:18:49PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work 
> > > with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't 
> > > work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation.
> > 
> > How does that solve the problems you mentioned above ? Wakeup
> > guarantees, latencies ...
> 
> Latency doesn't matter because we don't care when the next timer is due 
> to expire.

In your specific current implementation. It matters a hell of a lot in
most cases.

Alan
--
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/