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

[Alan Stern]

On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> > The two of you are talking at cross purposes.  Thomas is referring to 
> > idle-based suspend and Matthew is talking about forced suspend.
> 
> Yes, and forced suspend to disk is the same as force suspend to disk,
> which has both nothing to do with sensible resource management.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that all the untrusted 
applications should run with QoS(NONE).  Then they could do whatever 
they wanted without causing any interference.

And with idle-based power management (rather than forced suspend), 
there would be no issue with wakeup events getting unduly delayed.

Unless one of those events was meant for an untrusted application.  Is 
that the source of the difficulty?

Alan Stern

--
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/